Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Contaminated Phurnacite Land

Ann Clwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales about contaminated phurnacite land in the Cynon valley.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Minister. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the site in her constituency, and I am pleased that a taskforce involving all the relevant stakeholders is now up and running. It is moving things forward, and I hope that there will be progress shortly.

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer, but that is hardly progress. The site closed in 1990, and for the last 13 years the residents of Abercwmboi have lived next to 28 acres of highly contaminated land—some of the worst toxic waste left anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is high time we saw action rather this snail's-pace progress, if it can be described as progress at all.

Don Touhig: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's tireless work on this matter. Trawling through Hansard, I noted that she had asked questions about it back in the 1980s. I too am concerned about the time that it has been taking to overcome the problem, but the taskforce is now minded to move some of the waste from the site, which I know is what she and the residents want. I shall endeavour to keep her fully informed of anything I discover about progress, and I hope that all interested parties will work together to clean the site and make it available for a much better use than that to which it has been put for the past 20-odd years.

A483

Martyn Jones: What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial and National Assembly for Wales colleagues concerning improvements to the A483 south of Wrexham.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial and Assembly colleagues. The Highways Agency and the Assembly have recently carried out public consultation on a route management strategy for the A5/A483 trunk roads south of Wrexham. I hope that the results will be published later in the year.

Martyn Jones: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the late 1980s, when the road was improved by the Tories, they penny-pinched on the viaduct at Chirk and Acrefair? We ended up with a 10-metre carriageway which is both dangerous and, now, inadequate for the traffic that it is taking. Will my hon. Friend get together with his colleagues as soon as possible to ensure that the road is put right at the earliest opportunity?

Don Touhig: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. The Tory years were characterised by a lack of funds for major projects of this kind and, given their current proposal for a 20 per cent. public expenditure cut, the road will soon be down to a grass track.
	There are no plans for further dualling beyond Ruabon. The existing road is modern, and of a relatively high standard. Early indications from the public consultation suggest that more acceptable solutions are being considered. My colleagues in the Assembly recently undertook major resurfacing of the Newbridge bypass, and further discussions will take place about how we can make the route safer for all users.

Roger Williams: The Minister's travels through Wales will have been delayed by the traffic lights between Llandrindod Wells and Newtown on the A483. Temporary traffic lights have been in place for 15 years. Will the Minister rejoice with me that the Assembly has got round to carrying out roadworks? I wonder, though, why the work was done in August, when people wanted to travel to the Eisteddfod in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), causing disruption to the tourist trade.

Don Touhig: I am glad that the traffic lights have been removed, because I shall be travelling along the road next week. There is probably a gap in people's lives now that the lights have gone, but I welcome what has happened.

National Health Service

Chris Grayling: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for Health in the National Assembly for Wales regarding the national health service in Wales.

Peter Hain: I have regular meetings with Assembly Ministers when the Wales NHS is discussed.

Chris Grayling: What progress is the Secretary of State making in pursuing discussions with the National Assembly and the Department of Health to ensure that England and Wales do not end up with two inspection regimes for health, with all the extra bureaucracy and the additional work for hospitals that that will cause, particularly in border areas?

Peter Hain: Discussions are continuing. Obviously the Wales NHS is separate from the English NHS, but the two are linked and co-operation is important, especially in the cross-border areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State initiate discussions with the First Minister to establish whether comparative studies can be conducted by the National Audit Offices for Wales and England on performance in the health service, especially relating to orthopaedics, hip operations and cataract operations?

Peter Hain: That is an important issue. The fact is that performance in Wales has been much better than performance in England in respect of emergency admissions, but worse in respect of elective surgery. That applies to some of the areas mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The Wanless report, which constituted a pretty robust analysis of the situation, has been welcomed by the Health and First Ministers, who are taking action. I think that that will lead to the necessary improvements in performance, although we should not doubt the improvements that have already occurred. For instance, 200,000 more new patients are being seen than were being seen in 1997.

Nigel Evans: The part-time Secretary of State for Wales cannot abdicate responsibility for the severe problems that patients now face in the national health service in Wales. In-patient and day-case waiting lists continue to deteriorate, despite the fact that the Government have massively increased taxation on the people, including the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. On 12 September, The Western Mail pointed out that Welsh patients can wait four times longer to be seen than patients in England. In England, the out-patient first appointment target is 17 weeks; in Wales, it is 18 months. Is that acceptable?

Peter Hain: Of course, we want to improve performance all the time, and I am discussing these matters with Ministers in Cardiff bay to achieve that objective. The hon. Gentleman continually runs down the health service in Wales, yet 200,000 additional patients are being seen, compared with the record when the Tories lost office. How can he make such accusations, given that under the Tories, training places for nurses were cut by 25 per cent., and under Labour such places are already up by 30 per cent.? The truth is that the Tories would wreak havoc on the Wales health service, as they did when they were in power.

Nigel Evans: I am not talking down the national health service, but it is only right that, as an Opposition, we point out the realities of the NHS in Wales. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman talked about having citizens' contracts with the public in respect of public services. Citizens are fully delivering on their side of the bargain through massive extra taxation; it is the Government who are not delivering on theirs. Where were the citizens' rights for the 93-year-old lady who ended up breaking both hips last week when she was released from hospital and taken to somebody else's home, five miles away from her own? Where were the citizens' rights for the 26-year-old Caerphilly man who reported to his hospital that he had taken an overdose of 70 tablets, was left on a trolley for hours and then died? That was an absolute tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman's contract with the people is nothing more than a con trick. People will continue to mistrust this Government until they simply deliver the national health service that the people of Wales are paying for.

Peter Hain: Let us look at the facts. In their 18 years in power, the Tories closed 70 hospitals in Wales; we are in the process of building, or have built, 10 new ones. We are recruiting more nurses, more doctors and more consultants, after the long years of Tory cuts.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly describes as tragic the two incidents to which he refers. An inquest is obviously being held into the death of the Caerphilly man who, I understand, took an overdose and died while in hospital. The appalling incident in which the 93-year-old was delivered to the wrong address is the subject of a formal investigation, and as soon as I know its outcome, I shall obviously let the hon. Gentleman know.

Gareth Thomas: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the massive extra capital investment in the NHS in north Wales, and in the Ysbyty Glan Clwyd hospital in Bodelwyddan in particular? That includes the cancer treatment centre, which cost 20 million, and new procedures to improve emergency admissions. Does he accept that that represents a huge contrast with the under-investment in the health service that occurred under the Tories?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This is another example of the progress that is being made in the Wales health service. The staff of the excellent and well-managed Ysbyty Glan Clwyd hospital deserve the House's congratulations on their performance. An increasing number of patients are being seen, and the hospital is a beacon for health service provision in the area. That contrasts with the hospital closures that regularly occurred the length and breadth of Wales under the Tories, and which would be repeated if they got into power and implemented their 20 per cent. cuts.

Elfyn Llwyd: We owe a great debt of gratitude to those working in the NHS. My constituents tell me that when they do eventually get treatment, it is first class, and I am sure that that is right. When the right hon. Gentleman next speaks to the Minister for Health in Cardiff, will he congratulate her on getting the waiting list for those waiting for in-patient treatment for more than one year down to 12,641, compared with a figure of 37 in England?

Peter Hain: It is good to hear from the leader of Plaid Cymru in Parliament. Of course he competes for that position with two other leaders of Plaid Cymru, both of whom hate each other and did not vote for each other, revealing a party that is leaderless and schizophrenic about its leadership[Hon. Members: Answer the question.] Yes, I will answer the question. If the hon. Gentleman's disastrous policies for an independent Wales were implemented, health services and school services would be cut; whereas we now have record investment going in, more patients being seen and waiting times coming down. Patients who use the health service in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere know that the service is going from strength to strength under Labour.

Manufacturing Industry

Paul Flynn: What recent discussions he has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) Welsh Assembly Ministers on assistance for manufacturing industry in Wales.

Peter Hain: Regular ones. The Government are supporting manufacturing investment through structural funds, regional selective assistance, the research and development tax credit, regional venture capital funds and the small firms loan guarantee scheme, as well as reforming corporation and capital gains tax to encourage investment.

Paul Flynn: Does the Minister agreeI think that he well mightthat the Government have done a magnificent job in Wales by creating 78,000 jobs in the last 12 months and halving unemployment since we were elected in 1997? However, there is the one worry about manufacturing jobs, which have long been the backbone of the Welsh economy. Those jobs are going, particularly in Newport, where a third of employment is in the manufacturing sector. They were well paid, highly skilled, long-term jobs, but they have been replaced with jobsin call centres, for examplethat are none of those things: they are teflon jobs that may be in Wales today, but in Bangladesh tomorrow.

Peter Hain: We are competing in a very competitive world economy against countries, including Bangladesh, where wages are a fraction of what they are in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government's and the Labour Government's policy of value-added investment to increase the capacity of our manufacturing centre at the top end of the markets is the crucial policy to adopt. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome the fact that Interbrew, a Belgian company, has recently invested in Newport and created 40 new jobs. There are other stories and reports of massive investment across Wales from foreign and domestic companies, all contributing to the record increase of 78,000 jobs over the last year.

Lembit �pik: Now that we know that the Under-Secretary will be driving through my constituency next week, would he be willing to use the time he saves from the road works to visit the town of Llanidloes, which has lost 250 manufacturing jobs as a result of the closure of KTH? What feasible support can the Wales Office give, notwithstanding the support of the National Assembly, to ensure that we avoid an economic catastrophe in the Llanidloes area?

Peter Hain: I was privileged to attend the national Eisteddfod in the hon. Gentleman's constituencya marvellous occasion in a beautiful part of Wales. The position of KTH was obviously desperate. We worked together to try to save it and provide an alternative. The hon. Gentleman knows that I will do everything that I canand I am sure that the First Minister will do the sameto provide a decent future for the town.

Llew Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware of the vast number of jobs in the manufacturing industry that have been lost in my constituency? He will know that many of the jobs that have replaced them have too often been low-paid, non-union jobs. Does he accept that one way of overcoming the problem of low wages would be to increase the minimum wage in October not to 4.50, but to at least 5 an hour?

Peter Hain: As the Chancellor announced at the Trades Union Congress last week, the minimum wage will go up next year to 4.85 and thereafter to 5 an hour and more. That contrasts with the position under the Tories, who had no minimum wage and presided over poverty pay and the exploitation of workers. Under the Labour Government there has been more and more investment in the valleys. Today, for example, 400 new jobs in the airline industry are being created in Blackwood and Cwmbran, coupled with other manufacturing jobs in the sector. That is a sign of the manufacturing sector being given the support that it needs to go from strength to strength in difficult international conditions.

Nigel Evans: I know that the Secretary of State is interested in manufacturing jobs. After all, he has manufactured enough jobs for himself over the past six years. At the last Welsh questions, I suggested to him that he set up a taskforce to address the meltdown in manufacturing in Wales. However, since then, more manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the Office for National Statistics has downgraded Wales's gross domestic productas compared with England'sfrom 81.3 per cent. to 79.2 per cent. If that trend continues, the whole of Wales will be eligible for objective 1 status in six years' time.
	Professor Dylan Jones Evans, of the University of Wales, Bangor, has pointed out that
	manufacturing is continuing to decline and we are not replacing the jobs lost with high value
	[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are too long.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has my sympathy. I know that it is difficult for him to keep up with what is going on in Wales, as he is not a Welsh MP. Let us look at the facts, instead of talking down the manufacturing sector in Wales. Last Friday, I attended the commercial launch of a big power station by General Electric, the multinational company. It involved more than 1 billion of investment, with huge numbers of jobs being created. It located at Baglan in south Wales because that was the best location for the most highly developed gas power technology. Hundreds of people from Japan, Korea, Australia and the US came to Wales to see that it is now a good place to invest, compared with the Tory years.

Bed Blocking

Jon Owen Jones: What consultations he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government concerning the Wanless report recommendations on alleviating bed blocking in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Health, Jane Hutt. I met her yesterday and I shall meet her again today. I am also keeping in close touch with her on the issues arising from the Wanless report and I look forward to the Assembly's response and its implementation plan, to be announced later this year.

Jon Owen Jones: The Wanless report said that the health service in Wales was unsustainable. In particular, it highlighted the problems of bed blocking. It offered four options to deal with that problem and identified an immediate need. Given that the report was published in Julybut had been given to the Minister in Wales five months earlierand that some of the options require primary legislation, I should have thought that the Wales Office would have been prepared by now for those options. If it does not act now, we will face a delay of at least a year and half before any action is taken.

Don Touhig: It is important to bear it in mind that Wanless also said:
	The provision of health and social care is complex and multifaceted and cannot be summarised in a single sentence.
	The Public Accounts Committee report published this morning on bed blocking highlighted several of the problems that we face, and it will also inform any Government response. The Assembly Minister is preparing a response to Wanless and an implementation plan. If that requires any primary legislation, the Assembly will bid in the proper way and we will give every encouragement to ensure that what is needed to deliver an improvement in the health service in Wales is supported by the Government in Westminster.

Low-flying Exercises

Adam Price: What recent discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence on low-flying exercises in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: I regularly discuss matters affecting Wales with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence.

Adam Price: The Minister will be aware that in parts of Wales military aircraft are permitted to fly at an altitude of just 60 m, causing distress to individuals and many fallen livestock. Will he clear his diary to meet urgently colleagues from the Ministry of Defence to ask them why such exercises are allowed to continue in Wales when they have been banned in almost every other NATO country? Why are they necessary when low flying has not been used as a military tactic by British armed forces in any conflict since the end of the cold war?

Don Touhig: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is well skilled in self-defence, as he is about to attend his party's conference. He will need protection from the hand-to-hand fighting and back stabbing that characterises his divided party. However, he raises a serious issue. I experienced low-flying aircraft when I was in north Wales a week or so ago. The UK has no uninhabited areas large enough to meet the essential training needs of aircrew. The Ministry of Defence aims to spread the disturbance, but for operational and weather reasons some areas are busier than others. A reduction in low flying over the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Carmarthen, would obviously increase the burden elsewhere. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and I share his concerns, but I point out that less than 10 per cent. of operational low flying takes place over Wales. I will keep abreast of the issue, and do anything that I can to help obviate the problem.

Inward Investment

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on prospects for inward investment in Wales.

Peter Hain: In a tough economic climate, Wales remains one of Europe's top inward investment locations. Wales's share of British projects, together with the levels of jobs and investment, has increased. That is testament to the work of Team Wales and the partnership effort that is clearly achieving great things.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the latest report from the accountants Ernst and Young shows that, outside the euro, the share of inward investment going to the UKincluding Walesrose from 26.5 per cent. in 2001 to 28.4 per cent. in 2002. Do we need the euro? Were not the Swedish people right in their decision?

Peter Hain: Three quarters of Welsh exports go to the eurozone countries. Clearly, in the right economic circumstancesand the Treasury will continue to assess thosean opportunity to join the euro would benefit the Welsh economy and inward investment.

John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the launch of the aerospace cluster in my constituency last week? It will play an important role in inward investment, and also a crucial role in military aerospace and aviation. Will he do all that he can with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the red dragon project proceeds on course?

Peter Hain: Yes. The red dragon project will proceed on courseboth on and off the rugby field. My hon. Friend spoke about creating a centre of excellence for air investment in south Wales, and that is certainly happening. I can announce today that 400 new jobs are being created in the aerospace industry, in Blackwood and in Cwmbran. That will link with the excellent increases in investment in the military aerospace industry.

Public Sector Employment

Bill Wiggin: What proportion of jobs in Wales are in the public sector.

Peter Hain: The most recent data from the labour force survey show that one third of jobs in Wales are in the public sector.

Bill Wiggin: So why is that not making any difference?

Peter Hain: It is making a difference. The increase in employment in Wales last year78,000was the largest of any UK region. In the three months to July, Wales was once again among Britain's top-performing regions in terms of private sector output growth, according to the chief economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Huw Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 256 public sector jobs are in the forensic science laboratory in Chepstow? Those public servants provide a superb service to the Dyfed-Powys and South Wales police forces. However, staff are seriously worried about possible privatisation plans. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet staff representatives to discuss the matter?

Peter Hain: I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend's constituents. However, I point out to the House that implementation of the Tory policy of 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts would mean that jobs such as those that my hon. Friend has described and other public sector jobs elsewhere in Wales would be savaged.

Common Agricultural Policy

Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received from tenant farmers in Wales on proposed reform of the common agricultural policy.

Don Touhig: The hon. Lady takes a keen interest in this matter, about which she asked me questions in February and April. I understand her persistence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations from tenant farmers in Wales on the proposed reform. However, he has regular meetings with the Assembly First Minister, and I also meet the Assembly Minister responsible for the environment and for agricultural matters.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister still think that common agricultural policy reform will happen, given the collapse of the Cancun talks? How will tenant farmers benefit from the rural development strand of that reform?

Don Touhig: The issues relating to tenant farmers are complex, and my colleagues in the Assembly are consulting farming unions and other stakeholders on CAP reform. All sides in Wales have welcomed the reform package as a significant step in sustaining the Welsh farming industry. I shall spend two days next week in mid-Wales visiting Welsh producers, promoting Welsh foods and products, and visiting Welsh farms to obtain a first-hand understanding of some of the difficulties that our farmers face. The reforms that we are pushing for will benefit the industry.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Michael Jack: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 September.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I express my condolences on behalf of the Government, the House and the British people following the tragic murder of the Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh last week. She was an inspiration to the Swedish people and an internationally respected Foreign Minister. She will be deeply missed.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Michael Jack: The whole House will share in the Prime Minister's words on the sad death of the Swedish Foreign Minister.
	Can the Prime Minister justify his policy on student tuition fees in the light of research showing that graduates pay 2,000 a year more in tax than non-graduates do, and given that his own parliamentary party has rejected his policies and that he told the British people that he would not introduce student tuition fees?

Tony Blair: I suspect that graduates probably pay more income tax because they earn a great deal more moneysomething like 40 per cent. more. The choice is simple: either we get more funds into universities so that we have a fair system under which no one pays money up front, or we adopt the Conservative policy, which would result, according to the Institute of Education, in a cut of 100,000 students every year.

Barbara Follett: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that when the Post Office consults the public about the closure of a branch, it must demonstrate that it has taken their views into account? That certainly did not happen recently in Stevenage, when a strong case made for the retention of Chells post office was ignored by the Post Office. As a result, we are losing a strong branch and keeping a weak one.

Tony Blair: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard on that post office in her constituency. I also understand why people feel strongly about such closures. I know, too, that she would expect me to point out that at the end of the current programme of change in the Post Office, 95 per cent. of the urban population will still live within one mile of a post office. It is obviously important that we should try to provide the right facilities, and she will recognise that we are putting about 1.5 billion into the Post Office over the next few years. In the end, however, every decision of this type must, with the proper consultation, be a matter for the Post Office.

Iain Duncan Smith: I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister's condolences to the Swedish Government.
	On 10 June the Prime Minister launched a roadshow to sell the single currency to the British people. Can he tell us where it has got to?

Tony Blair: There have been about 60 visits from Foreign Office Ministers over the past few months. It is important to keep the option of joining the single currency open for the reasons that I have given before. The right hon. Gentleman's policy of closing off that option and saying no in any set of circumstances would not be the right one for the British people.

Iain Duncan Smith: The whereabouts of the Prime Minister's roadshow are a mystery even to his Government. The Treasury, when asked, says:
	There are so many roadshow events we can't begin to list them all.
	The Foreign Office said:
	The roadshow hasn't actually begun.
	Meanwhile, the Minister for Europe said:
	It's not a literal roadshow, it's only a figure of speech. Given that the roadshow has not even got on the road, will the Prime Minister confirm that there will not be a referendum in this Parliament?

Tony Blair: No, I certainly will not confirm that. We should keep our options open. The right test to apply is whether membership is in the economic interests of this country. We said that we would return to that issue next year. I see absolutely no reason for this country to say that it will foreclose its options and rule out membership of a single currency. We should do what is right for this country and keep the option open.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is spinning roadshows, wasting public money and legislating for a referendum that he does not have the courage to hold. Why does he not admit what everybody else knowsthat his dreams, his schemes and his hopes to scrap the pound are utterly wrecked?

Tony Blair: It is slightly odd of the right hon. Gentleman to accuse me of not having the courage to hold the referendum when in his second question he asked me to rule out holding one. We have to decide what is in our best interests as a country. I happen to believe that, in our best interests, we should keep open the option of joining the single currency if it is in our economic interests to do so. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman now holds a position not merely of blocking any change in the European constitution but of ruling out the single currency even if joining is in our economic interests. That is not a position that will recommend itself to the country, and when his predecessor adopted that position at the last general election, it was rejected.

Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the imminent job losses at Sheffield Forgemastersactually, at a local company that is better known as the family firm of R.B. Tennant? Does he agree that every possible effort should be made to consider the options by which we can retain those vital and highly skilled jobs?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is right to raise that issue as it is important. The Sheffield Forgemasters engineering business continues to have financial backing, and I understand that a series of meetings are taking place between the Department of Trade and Industry, the regional development agencyYorkshire Forwardand the company. I hope very much that a way forward can be found in the coming months.

Charles Kennedy: Last September, and again this February, the Prime Minister released dossiers to the British public that included the intelligence assessments that underpinned the case for war in Iraq. Why did he choose to withhold from those dossiers other intelligence that would undoubtedly have undermined his case in the minds of the British public?

Tony Blair: I do not accept that it would have undermined our case. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment about the danger of the weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it would have been totally irresponsible if we had said that that danger meant that we should allow Saddam Hussein to carry on developing them. That would have been a foolish state of affairs to have brought about. That is why I do not believe that it undermined the case for war at all.

Charles Kennedy: We now know that the Prime Minister was warned by the intelligence chiefs that war in Iraq could increase rather than decrease the risk of terrorism. We now know that the line in the original draft of the September dossier that reassured our public that Iraq was incapable of launching a nuclear strike against Britain was removed before publication. Why was the Prime Minister not willing to trust the British public to form a balanced judgment on those matters? Why did he not play it straight with the public at the time?

Tony Blair: It is extraordinary of the right hon. Gentleman, whose case as I understand it is that those weapons did not exist in any event, now to say

Charles Kennedy: indicated dissent.

Tony Blair: Oh, I see, they did existwe should just have done nothing about them. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants it straight, is that the day this country's foreign policy is run by the Liberal Democrats will be the day this country really is at risk.

Neil Turner: Recently, a young girl was raped in my constituency, and earlier in the summer a young girl was enticed to Europe from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Internet chatlines are the connection between the two cases. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, and other relevant Government Departments, all join together to ensure that chatlines are properly regulated? May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether there is some way to ensure that internet chatline organisers police themselves so that other families do not suffer the same trauma as those in my constituency?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend raises a valuable and important point. The Home Office and the task force for child protection on the internet are working together to try to ensure that the internet is safe for children to use. In addition, the Sexual Offences Bill contains measures that bear on the problem and will help. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to work with the industry, law enforcement and children's charities so that we do our very best to ensure that the law is sufficiently tight and also that internet services are greatly restricted whenever they may collide with the interests of children.

Chris Grayling: When the Prime Minister said recently,
	We should be willing to experiment with new forms of co-payment in the public sector,
	what did he mean?

Tony Blair: We have many examples of that: in pensions, where people make co-payments; in transport, where there is road-user charging in certain parts of the country; and in relation to student finance, where there is already co-payment through fees. It is important to recognise that when we are trying to boost our public services not all the money will come from the taxpayer. It is a pretty extraordinary thing if today's Conservative party is against those proposals.

David Borrow: Fire, police and ambulance services in Lancashire are appointing a number of emergency community support officers to work in rural areas, one of whom will be based in Tarleton in my constituency. In addition to supporting the police, those officers will act as the first responder, having been trained by the ambulance service, and will undertake fire prevention work, after training from the fire service. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the emergency services in Lancashire on that initiative and will he also urge emergency services in other rural areas

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is fine. The Prime Minister can answer.

Tony Blair: I certainly will congratulate the emergency services on the work that they are doing. It is worth pointing out that there are about 1,200 community support officerssomething that the Conservatives opposed when we introduced them. Those community support officers will be especially important not only at present but also when the Anti-social Behaviour Bill comes in, because they will be able to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of antisocial behaviour and truancy. It will be important that we increase the number of community support officers, as they are a huge help to the policewhose numbers are now at record levels.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Prime Minister accept that the restoration of basic services in Iraq is not progressing and will not do so as long as it remains under the control of the United States and the United Kingdom? Does he agree that delay in making the United Nations the principal authority in Iraq simply delays the day when basic services such as water, electricity and health care can be given to the Iraqi people?

Tony Blair: First, I do not agree at all that the problem in providing decent services is the presence of the British or American troops. Our troops in the south of Iraq are doing their utmost to provide electricity, water and basic services. The people who are stopping those services are those who are sabotaging themterrorists and supporters of Saddam. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be getting to his feet to praise our troops for the work that they are doing in the south of Iraq. As some of the facts do not always come across, I shall also tell him that all 240 hospitals in Iraq are now functioning; by the end of June most of the schools were open and about 5.5 million children were able to take their end of year exams; and we are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds of infrastructure investment to provide better power and electricity. That money was denied the people of Iraq by the regime of Saddam Hussein; had we followed the hon. Gentleman's policy, Saddam would still be in charge of it.

Barry Gardiner: Yesterday, a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development catalogued the decline in standards in British schools, but can the Prime Minister tell the House whether any part of that report related to any period while he was in government, or does it represent a catalogue of the failure of the Conservative party?

Tony Blair: It is interesting that the report, which was supposedly about Britain's school performance slumping, was analysing the school attainment of those aged 25 to 64 in 2001, so not a single person involved was in school under this Government. However, the OECD report about this Government and our record shows that, in reading, our 15-year-olds are eighth out of 43; in maths, eighth out of 31; and, in science, fourth out of 31. The report yesterday shows precisely the reason why we needed the increased investment that we have given.

Iain Duncan Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much council tax has gone up by since 1997?

Tony Blair: I cannot give an exact figure, but it is true that council tax has gone up since 1997; however, so has the amount of Government support to local government.

Iain Duncan Smith: The answer to the questionthe straight answeris that council tax has gone up by a massive 70 per cent., a typical family is now paying 413 more since Labour came to office, and the very poorest pensioners spend nearly 1 in every 10 on council tax. Can the Prime Minister tell us all where in his manifesto he warned people of those massive tax rises?

Tony Blair: It is correct that council tax has gone up, but it is also correct, as I say, that the amount of money coming from central Government to local government has increased. It has increased by 25 per cent. compared with a real-terms cut of 7 per cent. in the last four years of the Conservatives. The additional money that we are giving to local government at the moment was in the spending proposals, and was voted against by the right hon. Gentleman's party, which is in favour of cuts in that spending, so perhaps he will tell us how the council tax would be lower if we cut the amount of central Government support.

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me remind the Prime Minister of what he actually said. In his manifesto, he promised that there would be no excessive council tax rises. Yet, under Labour, council tax rises have become the biggest stealth tax of all, and next year he and his colleagues will send them soaring through the roof. Is not the reality that the Labour lies on taxes are the biggest single reason why nobody believes a single word he says anymore?

Tony Blair: The local authorities set the levels of council tax. The question, surely, for central Government is: are we providing them with sufficient money? [Hon. Members: No!] So it is apparently the position of the Conservative party that the increases that we have given are not enough, which is presumably why they voted even against the increases that we gave them. The truth of the matter is that we have given[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must calm himself. [Interruption.] Order. I am telling him and other hon. Members to calm down.

Tony Blair: We have put more money into local government, and it is for the local authorities in the end to decide what their levels of council tax are, but that money has helped our education, our social services and our other local services. Whatever the situation is, the position of local authorities could not be improved by the right hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to cut even the money that we have put in. So in the end, it is a matter for local government; but so far as we are concerned, we have been increasing the amount of money to local government, not decreasing it.

Martin Salter: Heroin and crack cocaine are flooding into our country, destroying lives and tearing apart families and communities. In my constituency in Reading, street crime recently fell by a third, but the town is still blighted by the scourge of hard drugs, as addicts turn to other forms of crime to feed their habits. What are the Government doing to improve joint working between the police, the courts and the treatment agencies to tackle that menace?

Tony Blair: We are making sure that for the first time there is proper working across the agencies, involving the drug treatment agency, the criminal justice system and the police, to deal with offenders who have a crack or heroin addiction. We are saying to them clearly that they can have the treatment that is available for them, but if they do not accept that treatment, under the Criminal Justice Bill that we are putting through the House, they stand at risk of bail being refused. We cannot have a situation in which people who are drug addicts and who have tested positive for drugs are put back out on the street where they will commit further crime.
	More than 6,000 drug treatment and testing orders, which are for those who have already been convicted of a crime, have now been issued, and 50 per cent. of the people on them have either given up drugs or are co-operating with the authorities. That is why the huge investment that we are now making in drug treatment across the country is for the first time giving us the chance to deal with this problem.

Tim Boswell: Does the Prime Minister think that a majority of Labour Back Benchers support his current policy on student top-up fees?

Tony Blair: I believe that when we come to the debate we shall see what the support is. Yes, I do believe, however, that the vast majority of people here will support that proposal. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why. We have a simple choice: either we make sure that we widen access to university and allow those universities to bring in more and more people, whom we need in today's world, or we adopt the policy with which he has now associated himself, which is to cut by 100,000 a year the numbers going into university. That is an inequitable policy, and this side of the House will not support it.

Siobhain McDonagh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in January the south-west London diagnostic and treatment centre for hips and knees will open? It will be the largest such centre outside America. Not only will it benefit my constituents and those of other hon. Members by performing 1,500 more hip and knee replacements a year, but it will provide an unparalleled base for research in Europe on orthopaedics. Would he support plans to provide such a centre of excellence on this site?

Tony Blair: I am delighted about the centre in my hon. Friend's constituency. By 2005, such centres will be providing around 300,000 extra operations in the health service a year, and will be one of the reasons why every national health service indicator is already better than in 1997. I see from the comments of the Conservatives' health spokesman the other day that they are opposed to those centres. Any constituency that gets one of those centres therefore knows that the Conservatives would take it away.

Gary Streeter: Returning to the vital issue of drugs, for which I make no apology as it is surely one of the biggest social challenges facing our nation, is the Prime Minister aware that we now have a growing number of heroin addictsup to 250,000yet only 2,000 places at treatment centres to which they can turn for help? If an addict therefore makes the brave decision to turn his back on a life of misery and crime, there are simply not enough places for him to get help at the moment. Will the Prime Minister take an urgent look at this problem and, if necessary, redirect resources and make sufficient numbers of places available?

Tony Blair: Actually, the treatment position is better than the hon. Gentleman describes. It is improving all the time, and more and more places are being made available. A presentation was made to me yesterday by people working in Manchester on this issue, and, as a result, they are able to extend treatment to the numbers of people that they are identifying as drug addicts in the criminal justice system. The only way we will do that, however, is by investing the necessary money. It is not a question of redirecting it from elsewhere, but of making that basic investment, to which we are committed. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I am sure is sincere, the fact is that his Front Benchers are opposed to that money going in.

Alan Howarth: Given that it is essential to bring more money into the universities and to increase opportunity for people to study in universities, is not the fairest and most effective policy to achieve those purposes to allow an increase in university fees, covering the costs through loans to be repaid by graduates as and when their income permits, while bringing back maintenance grants for people from less-well-off households and increasing support for universities and schools to work together to raise educational aspiration?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes the right argument. That is why I believe that, as the debate progress, people will support it. The alternative is to cut the numbers of people going to university and for Britain to become the only country anywhere in the world that is reducing the number of people with access to higher education.

Anne McIntosh: Has the Prime Minister seen from the Public Accounts Committee report that 50,000 beds have been lost since 1996? Is he surprised by that when there has been a 20 per cent. increase in fees to the National Care Standards Commission and a 142 per cent. increase in enhanced criminal record checks? What is he going to do about that?

Tony Blair: Today's report is about delayed discharges and it indicates that there is still an awful lot to do. However, I point out to the hon. Lady that, under this Government, we have had the first increase in the number of beds in the health service for many years. We have already halved the number of delayed discharges. It is true that we have got to go a lot further, but there is no way at all, if we compare the position now with that of 1997, that we are not in a better one.

John Smith: With more than 55 million Britons taking flights abroad each year, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wholly unacceptable that airlines in this day and age have no legal liability whatsoever for the health or well-being of their passengers? Will he undertake to look into this?

Tony Blair: We are supporting the research into deep vein thrombosis that is being carried out by the World Health Organisation. I also say to my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will ratify the Montreal convention when all 15 members states of the European Union are in a position to do so simultaneously. At the moment, that is not the case, but I hope that it will be. Obviously, the next steps on this will be informed by the research that is being undertaken by the WHO.

Bob Russell: What does the Prime Minister think will give him the most concern on Friday as he looks at the collapse of the Labour vote in Brentthe fact that Labour supporters no longer trust him or the fact that traditional Labour supporters no longer have any faith in new Labour?

Tony Blair: If I may give the hon. Gentleman some advice, it would be as well to wait for the verdict of the electorate before the Liberal Democrats presume it. From what I can make out, one of the key issues in this by-election is antisocial behaviour. The Liberal Democrats have been putting out leaflets saying how serious they are about tackling it. However, when legislation was before the House to give the police the powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, the Liberal Democrats voted en masse against it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to tell people that.

Stephen Pound: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill died a mute, inglorious death a few weeks ago on the Floor of this very Chamber. This Bill, which was piloted with great skill, ability and intelligence through the upper House by my colleague, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, and by a rather less distinguished parliamentarian in this House, deserves a second chance. Will my right hon. Friend give the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill the chance to rise againeven though that will cause some pain to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)?

Tony Blair: Well, it saysI understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend that his Bill did not make better progress, but the Government have had a long-standing commitment since August 2000 to bring forward new laws to give local authorities in England and Wales powers to determine complaints about high garden hedges and will make every effort to get them on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I cannot say better than that.

Alex Salmond: In three weeks' time, the Prime Minister's tenure in Downing street will exactly match that of John Major. Does he not think that enough is enough?

Tony Blair: One of the things that we did on coming to office was to deliver devolution in Scotland. After devolution in Scotland, the nationalists in Scotland had their worst election result. May I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that, since 1997, it is not me who has retired from leadership?

Jim Dobbin: May I tell my right hon. Friend that a constituent of mine, Mr. Maurice Jones, who was a company director of Lister Yarns and worked for the company for 42 years, retired recently with little or no pension after the scheme collapsed? Can the Prime Minister offer a ray of hope to Mr. Jones and the 20,000 other pensioners in the same situation that retrospective compensation may be looked at? Surely it is a wrong that needs correcting.

Tony Blair: I will certainly bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will know that the pensions protection fund that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced recently is precisely to deal with that situation so that we have insurance underpinning people whose pension schemes collapse. I will look into the issue that my hon. Friend raises very carefully.

WTO Ministerial Conference

Patricia Hewitt: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the fifth World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancun from 10 to 14 September, which I attended together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment. Commissioners Lamy and Fischler negotiated on behalf of the European Union.
	The UK delegation included my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who represented the Select Committee on International Development, as well as representatives of the CBI, the TUC, the Consumers Association and the UK Trade Network. I warmly welcome their participation and thank them for their work.
	The conference was attended by delegates from all 146 members of the World Trade Organisation, accompanied by many thousands of parliamentarians and civil society organisations as observers. On the opening day, we welcomed the accession of Cambodia and Nepal.
	The British delegation worked hard to help to secure an outcome that would meet the needs of developing countries. Ministerial colleagues and I met a large number of representatives from those countries, and we ensured that their views were reflected when we met the United States and EU colleagues and others.
	The conference was the WTO's opportunity to restore momentum to the Doha development round, which was launched with such high hopes in November 2001. It is with great regret that I must report that we were unable to reach an agreement. Talks broke down on the final day.
	Before the talks ended, however, Commissioner Lamy, on behalf of the European Union, offered to abandon completely negotiations on two of the so-called Singapore issuesinvestment and competitionwhich was a position that the British Government fully supported. Many other WTO members also signalled a willingness to be flexible on various issues. With more time, I believe that it would have been possible to reach agreement.
	Failure to reach agreement at Cancun is a serious setback for the Doha round, but it is not the end of the round or the WTO itself. In anticipation of Cancun, we had already reached agreement, which was overdue but welcome none the less, on access to medicines for developing countries. That agreement stands and must now be built on, especially through the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
	In June, the Agriculture Council of the EU agreed significant reforms of the common agricultural policy. The reforms will mean substantial cuts in the trade-distorting support and export subsidies that we give to our own farmers, which do so much damage to farmers in the developing world. The EU has already offered, in principle, to phase out export subsidies on products of particular interest to developing countries. The agreement on CAP reform was, of course, not conditional on agreement at Cancun.
	We also saw at Cancun the formation of the G21 and other strengthened developing country groupings. I wholeheartedly welcome the emergence of this stronger voice for poorer nations. Indeed, the Government have led the way on helping developing countries to build their negotiating capacity. We have given 110 million to trade-related capacity building and technical assistance since 1998 and an additional 50 million was announced by the Secretary of State for International Development last week. Furthermore, at Cancun itself we made real progress in discussions on agriculture and other vital issues. There is no doubt that we were closer to agreement at the end of the Cancun conference than we were at the beginning.
	We now need to lift our sights once more to the prize that is on offer, particularly for developing countries, if we can get the round back on track. The Cancun conference agreed a new deadline of 15 December to try to resolve the issues that we could not sort out at Cancun. I have already spoken to the director general of the World Trade Organisation, Dr. Supachai, about how the United Kingdom can help to drive that forward.
	The final ministerial statement of the conference urged that those renewed discussions be based on the concessions that delegates offered at Cancun and not on their earlier positions. In the case of the European Union, that means that we should accept that, despite our continuing commitment to encourage and to facilitate direct investment in developing countries, WTO agreements on investment and competition are off the EU's agenda.
	The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank announced in Cancun a new initiative to help developing countries to overcome problems in adjusting to a more liberal trading environment. I warmly welcome that. The UK Government will make a substantial input to the design and implementation of the initiative.
	In the wake of Cancun, it is, I am afraid, inevitable that more emphasis will be put on regional and bilateral trade agreements. Although those could help to promote south-south as well as north-south trade, they risk excluding many poorer countries and leaving others isolated in negotiations with far larger countries. We continue to believe that the multilateral system should be the cornerstone of world trade rules.
	All WTO members now need to reflect on the lessons to be learned from Cancun and to find ways of improving processes. We also have to address the issues of substance that prevented agreement at Cancun. We shall discuss how best to make progress on all those matters with our EU partners, the European Commission and others, taking particular account of the views of developing countries.
	This Government are determined to do all we can to help to deliver a development round in line with the promises that we made at Doha. All countries stand to gain, but the poorest stand to gain the most. That is why we support the round and will continue to work for its success.

Tim Yeo: I welcome the Secretary of State back from her sojourn in the sun and am grateful to her for making available a copy of the statement in advance of it being delivered.
	The collapse of the Cancun talks is a serious setback for rich and poor countries alike. No one can take satisfaction from an outcome that threatens the timely and successful completion of the Doha round. There will be widespread dismay in Britain at the breakdown and at the absence from the Secretary of State's statement of any firm, specific proposals to overcome the difficulties that have arisen.
	Reducing barriers to free trade is essential to raising living standards worldwide. If progress towards the goal of freer trade is hampered by the breakdown at Cancun, we need to understand why the talks failed. Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite the fact that the European Union went further than it has done previously in its offer to reduce agriculture subsidies, the continued existence of protectionist farm policies both in Europe and the United States remains a very big obstacle? Will she admit that claims by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the common agricultural policy reforms agreed earlier this year would meet World Trade Organisation needs have proved to be completely wrong? Is not the truth that, within Europe, the British Government have been sidelined from agriculture policy reform discussions by France and Germany?
	Will the Secretary of State also admit that, although in 2003 Britain has had a unique and historic opportunity to influence United States policy, it has failed to do so in this respect and that United States intransigence on farm subsidies remains as strong as ever? Does she recognise that these talks are not a one-way street and that developing countries must make serious efforts to tackle corruption and to provide greater transparency? Does she share my disappointment that the breakdown of the talks was apparently regarded by some of the development non-governmental organisations as a cause for celebration?
	Given the importance of making progress on steps that will encourage investment in developing countries and the understandable concern of those countries about burdensome negotiations, does the Secretary of State now accept that a specific advocacy fund, as proposed by the Conservatives, would be an excellent and practical way to help developing countries and to resume progress on the Doha round? The general trade facilitation programme announced by Baroness Amos last week and referred to in the statement is no substitute. In relation to Baroness Amos, does the Secretary of State understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development that that important Department is no longer represented in the House of Commons by a Cabinet Minister?
	Will the Secretary of State enlarge on the nature of British input in the IMF-World Bank initiative that she mentioned in her statement? Does she feel that Britain was justified in sending such a large and costly delegation to the talks? Does she now regret visiting Honduras, and one minute telling small farmers that they should be protected and the next, behind their backs, that they had no future?
	Does the Secretary of State have any concerns about the way in which the talks were chaired? I share her view that their termination at a time when some people felt that avenues could still be pursued was a mistake. Does she feel that the existing arrangements in the European Union create the risk of the Commission sometimes negotiating in isolation without enough political input from member state Governments?
	The world will be poorer if the Doha round fails. For the sake of men, women and children in both developed and developing countriesI share the Secretary of State's view that it is the poorest countries that stand to gain the mostGovernments around the world need to work harder to overcome their differences. I trust that Britain will play its part in that process, and if the Government do so they will have our full support.

Patricia Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that we will have his full support in our efforts to get the talks back on track.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the CAP reforms that we agreed with our European colleagues, which were described by none other than Ben Gill as revolutionary.

Andrew Robathan: Labour stooge.

Patricia Hewitt: It is wonderful to hear the head of the National Farmers Union described as a Labour stooge.
	The reforms were described as revolutionary, and nobody would have believed them possible if we had predicted them only six or eight months ago. I do not think that anyone in the House or, indeed, the NGOs should talk down the significance of the reforms for agriculture policy. They may not do everything, but they go a very long way indeed towards remove the trade-distorting subsidies that do so much damage to the developing world. Having made that enormous step forward in Europe, we are indeed entitled to expect other developed countries to match the reforms, particularly in export credits and food aid.
	On the issue of transparency, one of the things that I welcomed at Cancun was the extent to which developing countries in the first two or three days of talks said how much better the process was than at Doha. Of course, it was streets ahead of where we were in Seattle. That, unfortunately, was not sustained in the final days, and it is one of the lessons that need to be learned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nobody should regard the breakdown of the talks as a cause for celebration, although some signs of celebration, especially among the smaller developing countries, reflected the fact that the developing countries themselves were much stronger. The dynamics and balance of power in the WTO have undoubtedly been altered.
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the advocacy fund. Developing countries do not want to be given money to hire other countries' expertsthey want their own people to be trained and supported so that they can negotiate more effectively. That is precisely what we have been doing through the significant investment that I described in trade-related capacity building.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned my visit last week to Honduras, where I was able to see for myself, as I have done in other countries, the effect of abrupt market openingin this case, 10 years ago, under pressure from the IMF, to subsidised rice imports from the United States. That abrupt market liberalisationthat opening to subsidised importsdestroyed the rice farmers of Honduras for many, many years. The rice farmers are beginning to come back into production, thanks to a change in the market rules made by the Honduran Government, underlining the importance of the discussions that we had in Cancun on special and differential treatment and different approaches for products of special concern to developing countries.
	Finally, on the Department for International Development, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the days of the Conservative Government, Baroness Chalker, who I thought was an excellent Minister for Overseas Development, was neither in this House, nor in the Cabinet. I will certainly not take lectures on international development from a member of the party that cut international aid budgets from where we had left them in 1979 to such an extent that developing countries lost out to the tune of 20 billion. We will deliver on development, and we will continue to try to deliver on fair trading rules that will benefit developing countries, as well as the rest of the world.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Secretary of State back and suggest that she probably now appreciates the significance of the fact that in the Mayan language, I believe, the word Cancun means snake-pit. I agree that it is genuinely bad news that the negotiations have broken down, and that those who were celebrating were being premature, if the breakdown opens the way, as it might well do, to much more unilateral and bilateral policy. That would be damaging, particularly to the weakest countries, which have little negotiating power.
	I endorse the right hon. Lady's positive remarks about the ability of the developing countries to articulate their case much more forcefully and coherently. However, one of the serious misjudgments in the negotiations was the reaction of the rich countries, especially the patronising attitude of European Commissioner Fischler, for example, with his condemnatory remarks about the developing country group, and, even more, the attitude of the American Administration. The American trade negotiator revealed the protectionist and corrupt heart of the Bush Administration when he argued publicly that as President Bush could not conceivably be expected to give up subsidising his allies who own cotton plantations, developing countries in Africa should find a comparative advantage in something else.
	It is not helpful for the Secretary of State to suggest, as she has been doing, albeit in quite subtle ways, that the failure of the negotiations is primarily down to the Mexican chairman or the process. Some severe miscalculations were made by the European Union, and she should be honest about those failures. Why, for example, did EU negotiators go into the negotiations with, as one of their central demands, a set of new issues for which the developing countries were clearly not prepared and for which there was little interest or enthusiasm in the investment community?
	Why did the EU negotiators go into the negotiations publicly proclaiming, as Commissioner Fischler did on several occasions, that their central negotiating objectives were the interests of the 1 per cent. of the population of Europe who own large commercial farms? They failed to make it clear to the developing countries that there is a real commitment to get rid of export subsidies and production-linked subsidies andsomething that was rarely mentionedto improve market access.
	Who does the right hon. Lady blame for that failure? Was it the European Union negotiators? When I criticised them in the past, she responded by saying that they, particularly Commissioner Lamy, are brilliant. Does she now reappraise her assessment or does she take the view that it was not their failure, but that the EU Ministers had a flawed mandate? If that is the case, does she not accept some responsibility for it?
	In conclusion, let me turn to the future. The Secretary of State is right to put the emphasis on rescuing this disaster. What specific new liberalisation initiatives, especially in agriculture, will she and the Secretary of State for International Development seek from other member states in the next few months so that they go into the next negotiations with a much more credible position than on emerging from the last ones?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful for a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. First, on the reaction to the emergence of the G21, which also caused some consternation among smaller African countries in particular, my view is that, as with much else at Cancun, there are lessons to be learned all round. All of us need to reflect on what happened at Cancun.
	Secondly, in relation to cotton, the hon. Gentleman is right that there was great anger not only among the four desperately poor cotton-producing African countries, but among all the other countries that had supported them. We had also supported them with money to help them in advancing their cause. There was enormous anger about the draft text that appeared on Saturday suggesting that those countries should be helped to move out of cotton production, in which they would be competitive if they were not competing against subsidised products.
	Thirdly, as I have indicated, the European Union signalled its commitment to agricultural reform and flexibility in the negotiations. However, one of the problems at Cancun was that the negotiations began so late in the day and that so many days were wasted in restatement of uncompromising and uncompromised positions.
	All members of the WTOespecially the larger onesneed to take responsibility for the breakdown of the talks, and we all need to learn lessons. On the next steps, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have only just agreed far-reaching reforms of the common agricultural policy and that, as we put them into effect, they will have a beneficial impact on developing countries. We will continue to press inside the WTO and outside for other developed countries to match the commitment that Europe has already made to admitting everything but arms and ensuring that all non-armament imports from the least-developed countries are completely free of tariffs and quotas. As I said, we will redouble our efforts to try to achieve through the WTO in Geneva the agreement that we shouldand, I believe, couldhave made at Cancun.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I am about to call Back Benchers, I say to hon. Members that supplementaries should be brief.

Tony Colman: Will the Secretary of State pass on my thanks and those of other parliamentarians to the superb team of officials that we fielded in Cancun? Those of us who attended the conference were appalled at the criticisms made by certain Opposition Members, who questioned whether they should be present. Their skill and knowledge was appreciated not only by the European Commission, but by the many developing countries that sought advice from them and to which they were very helpful.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the World Bank-IMF proposals that were announced on the first day of the conference. Will further work be done on them before 15 December, when the WTO reconvenes? What will our input be? In particular, work is being proposed for developing countries that reduce their tariff barriers and subsequently face budget deficits. The World Bank and IMF may be able to help significantly in that regardfor instance, in ensuring that the millennium development goals are not harmed by such reductions in tariff barriers.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about our officials, who have done outstanding work not only at Cancun, but at Doha and since.
	On the World Bank and the IMF, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I will meet shortly to see how we can most effectively support the initiative that he mentioned. For example, we need to find much better ways to help the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries as they face the erosion of their preferences that will come from a more liberal trade environment. We need to deal with the issue of possible loss of revenues from import tariffs, at least in the short term. That can all be achieved by a convergence between the WTO and the international financial institutions so that trade liberalisation, instead of devastating some of the poorest producers as it did in Honduras, can become an effective way of achieving more rapid development.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that, in November 2001, I urged that we retain the linkage between investment, competition and new issues and trade liberalisation. I regret the loss of that linkage. If it is taken off the agenda, it will be developing countries that lose the most in the longer term, because of the benefits of inward foreign direct investment. We can see those benefits even in the United Kingdom in terms of additional productivity growth. Will she at least give an assurance that we will continue to press hard through capacity building to try to encourage developing countries to build up the capacity to enter into those new issues as soon as possible?

Patricia Hewitt: As I made clear in my statement, increasing foreign direct investment into developing countries is essential. The problem that arose was that developing countries did not feel able to participate in negotiations on those issues, given everything else that was going on. On trade facilitationone of the other Singapore issuesthere was general agreement that it was valuable to developing countries to make progress. If and when we secure agreement on the next stage of the Doha round, I hope that we will start negotiations on trade facilitation. However, we will pursue by other means the issue of supporting developing countries in getting the investment that they need, rather than by seeking to add to the negotiating agenda in the Doha round.

John Battle: It is encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend say that this is not the end of the round and that we must press forward. Will she assure us, however, that the new issues, as they are now becoming known, will not be pushed on to the table in Geneva by our Government or the EU, so that there can be some positive progress on the agenda?

Patricia Hewitt: I have already made the position clear: in line with the ministerial declaration made at Cancun, I anticipate that the European Union will no longer seek to press for negotiations on investment and competition. We will continue to support countries in other ways in getting the investment that they need, but not through those negotiations.

Tony Baldry: As one of those who was at Cancun, may I endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) about the professionalism of UK officials and the contribution that they made?
	When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development, she said, with some perspicacity:
	If we do not get progress on agricultural market access and agricultural export subsidies we will not get a round.
	We did not and have not done so. The Doha declaration states that we need to place the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of WTO negotiations. Between now and the end of the round, how does she believe that the needs and interests of developing countries will be put at the heart of the WTO process?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments to the officials.
	We never got into the detailed discussions on agriculture that should have taken place at Cancun, although positions were already starting to shift. Indeed, the Trade Minister of one of the major developing countries, a member of the G21, told me and, I understand, the chairman that, with a further five or six hours of discussions on agriculture, he believed that an agreement would have been reached. That is what we now have to strive towards in the talks at Geneva, as well as agreement on industrial market access and special and differential treatment. That cannot simply be left to the ambassadors in Geneva; it will require the wholehearted support of Ministers, and I will certainly give such support.

Helen Jackson: Was my right hon. Friend able to raise at Cancun the issue of steel tariffs, which are having a very serious effect on the special and stainless steel sectors in south Yorkshire?

Patricia Hewitt: I did indeed take the opportunity to raise the issue of unlawful steel tariffs with Ambassador Zoellick. I urged on him the need for the US Administration to use the mid-term review of the tariffs, to which they are committed, to withdraw them in line with the WTO judgment that has already been given. Although he made no commitmentmy hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear thathe indicated that the Administration would be considering their position very seriously in the mid-term review.

Pete Wishart: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most significant development at Cancun was the emergence of the G21 nationsa bunch of nations that are no longer prepared to be fobbed off, fought off or picked off? Rather than being the rebellion of the midgets, as suggested by some western Governments, is this not the rebellion of the up-and-coming nationsthe economies of tomorrow? Will she pledge to meet those nations and take the opportunity to address their agenda? Most important of all, will she ensure that the British Government are part of the solution, not part of the problem?

Patricia Hewitt: As I said earlier, the emergence of the G21 and other groups of developing countries has transformed the dynamic and the balance of power in the WTO. I wholeheartedly welcome that, although we must not make the mistake of thinking that the G21 countries speak for the whole developing world, which they clearly do not. Some commentators made that mistake initially.
	These countries are enormously important. They form the largest group of countries in the developing world, and include the fastest-growing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, for many months as well as in the past few days, I have had a number of telephone conversations with the Trade Ministers of Brazil, South Africa, India, Pakistan and China.

Colin Challen: I, too, welcome the birth of the new, assertive developing-world groups, which I am sure we will see as a positive move when we look back on the conference.
	Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on her comments in Honduras, quoted in the Financial Times on Saturday? She said:
	part of the development path for any country is to move people out of small-scale subsistence farming into larger-scale production or industrial production.
	That, I think, has considerable ramifications for agricultural production in the developing world, especially in the context of employment, the environment and subsidies.

Patricia Hewitt: One of the greatest challenges to all the developing countries is the appalling poverty in which small-scale subsistence farmers live. Helping them to move out of that poverty is central to the achievement of the millennium goals.
	When I was in Honduras I was able to discuss the issue with the Minister for Technical Co-operation, who is effectively responsible for social inclusion programmes. She made precisely the same point that I had made: that over time, with effective Government and NGO support, small-scale farmers who are struggling to live on less than $1 a day, scratching a living from a hectare or so of land, can move into larger co-operatives and gain some market power. Eventually more will move into larger-scale production, or indeed into other sectors of the economy. That is the development path followed by the rich countries, and we should not seek to deny it to the desperately poor countries of today's world.

Alistair Burt: As the Secretary of State will know, those of our constituents who take an interest in these matters are strongly influenced by the many committed, dedicated NGOs that operate in the area. When one or two of them gave evidence to the International Development Committee on the Doha round, some of us felt concerned about the gap between their perception of what the round would be able to achieve for developing countries and the view expressed by the Secretary of State today, which a number of us share.
	Bearing in mind the NGOs' influence on our constituents, is the right hon. Lady planning any initiatives to get closer to them and to ensure that they are given a rather different picture of a complicated issue which, if over-simplified, may give rise to a very clear sense of right and wrong that may not always be accurate?

Patricia Hewitt: I pay tribute to the excellent work that many NGOs do in developing countries. I was with Christian Aid when I visited Honduras.
	We regularly meet NGOs, particularly in the trade justice network. We all meet them in our constituencies, but, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, I do so regularly on behalf of the Government. In Cancun, we had six meetings with the UK NGOs that were there.
	Throughout our discussions before and during Cancun, we have tried to ensure that as far as possible we share an analysis of the potential gains for developing countries from a successful Doha round. On some issues, notably trade in servicesas the hon. Gentleman and others will know full wellI simply do not accept the statements made by one or two NGOs, which we have sought repeatedly to rebut and disprove; but I am afraid that that is in the nature of those NGOs. We will continue to work with them, because the support and pressure from the Trade Justice Movement is entirely welcome. I wish that it were replicated in other parts of Europe and other parts of the developed world.

Denzil Davies: Is it not less than satisfactory for negotiations with 15 individual European Union member states to be headed and conducted by, in effect, a single European Union civil servant? Given that from next May there will be 25 member states, should we not look at the arrangements again? Should not member states that wish to do so be able to conduct their own negotiations, headed by democratically elected Ministers accountable to democratically elected Parliaments?

Patricia Hewitt: The European Union is, of course, a single trading community. There would be havoc if individual countries tried to secure different agreements on some of the highly technical matters with which we deal in the WTO. I shall not name any states in particular, but I think that my right hon. Friend can conclude for himself that such an arrangement might not be entirely helpful in the case of matters relating to agricultural subsidies.

David Curry: If we were really five or six hours away from an agreement on agriculture, the break-up of the talks is inexplicable. The Secretary of State was right to point to the danger of allowing bilateral trade agreements to take over from multilateral agreements. The principal protagonist in that is the United States, an example being the proposed all-Americas trade agreement. What influence can the United Kingdom exert on President Bush to emphasise the primacy of a rules-based multinational approach to trade? As we approach the expiry of the peace clause, is there not a danger of a spate of extremely angry and violent disputes in the WTO, which would make the situation worse?

Patricia Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important issue: the expiry of the peace clause at the end of December. It is curious that no one mentioned the peace clause at Cancun. Following its expiry, all the trade-distorting agricultural arrangements could be subject to trade disputes in the WTO settlement procedure. That may prove to be the most powerful lever available to all of us who want the round to make progress, ensuring that everyone returns to the negotiating table and proceeds on the basis of the compromises that were beginning to emerge at Cancun.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the genuinely intelligent and enlightened view that she has expressed today was not, unfortunately, reflected in the EU's negotiating position? She deserves no discredit for thatand the same applies to the position of the United States.
	If we are to return to the Doha commitment that the rich world will listen properly to the developing world, will my right hon. Friend pledge to convey that message to our colleagues in the EU? Will she tell them that we must listen to the developing world, as we did not in the case of the Singapore issues and the negotiating mandate for Pascal Lamy in Cancun?

Patricia Hewitt: Both the European Union and the United States played an important role in launching the Doha round nearly two years ago. My hon. Friend is right: if we are to make progress on this round, we must listen to the increasingly powerful voice of the developing countries. We must deliver on the promises that we made at Dohaand that is precisely the message that I shall reinforce in all my discussions with European and other developed-world colleagues.

Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that many supporters of the Trade Justice Movement in the United Kingdom share her disappointment. However, I welcome her announcement that there has been movement in terms of aid going in to tackle the HIV pandemic. Bearing in mind the failure of others to implement the wiping out of debt that we have pursued, does she foresee any problems in implementing the decision on the AIDS pandemic? Will any countries resile from it?

Patricia Hewitt: The agreement that we reached on intellectual property and access to medicines was in no way conditional on agreement at Cancun, so it stands and will now be implemented. Indeed, the general council of the WTO endorsed it before we arrived at Cancun. Of course, dealing with the issue of intellectual property is only part of the picture; we also have to ensure that Governments of developing countries can actually afford to buy the drugs, even when they are manufactured under compulsory licence. This Government have already committed more than 1.5 billion to support the strengthening of health care systems in developing countries, and we have pledged an additional $80 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Diane Abbott: In negotiating these trade issues, will the Secretary of State pay attention to the particular concerns of the Caribbean and other small island states? A completely free market in sugar and bananas would clearly be good for some of the very poorest countries in the world, but it would be unfortunate if that benefit were achieved at the expense of the Caribbean, a region in which 1 million British citizens still have very close family ties.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Indeed, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development spent a great deal of time at Cancun, and previously, talking to representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries about the impact on them of trade liberalisationin sugar, in particular. In the next month or so, we are expecting proposals from the European Commission on reform of the sugar regime, and the interests of the ACP countries is one issue that we will bear in mind as we seek to conclude reform of our wholly unjustified sugar subsidies. It surely makes no sense for the European Union to be putting so much subsidy into sugar that Finland is a major sugar beet producer. This has to stop.

John Gummer: Does the Secretary of State accept that those of us who were in Cancun saw the huge steps that the European Union has taken to reform the common agricultural policy, and that we respected the way in which Commissioner Lamy put the case on our behalf? Does she also accept that the attitude of the United States on cotton and in terms of refusing to go back beyond the Farm Bill makes it very difficult for the rest of the world to believe that the Bush Administration are really interested in multilateral trade agreement? Will she bring home to that Administration that until they stop subsidising a $3 billion crop of cotton with $4 billion of subsidy, it will be impossible to take their position seriously?

Patricia Hewitt: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about cotton. As I said earlier, US subsidies are having a devastating effect on some of the poorest African countries. Through direct discussions with our American colleagues and through the European Union, we will continue to call for the United Statesand other developed countriesto match the steps on reform of agricultural subsidies that we are taking here in Europe.

David Drew: Although the news is depressing overall, it is not fair simply to say that the outcome was depressing; surely we must also consider the process. Will my right hon. Friend look at ways in which the WTO itself can be further reformed, so that developing countries can have more of a direct voice? If nothing else, they should be able to speak for themselves, rather than having others arrogating decisions on their behalf.

Patricia Hewitt: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's comments, and we will certainly look at how we can help to continue to improve WTO processes. As I said, they were better this time than at Doha or Seattle, and a number of developing country Governments welcomed that fact. We must also recognise that a very real change has taken place in terms of the strength with which developing countries speak for themselves inside the WTO. We in the United Kingdom have helped that process along through our capacity-building measures, which have been hugely important. We will continue to do that, and I hope that we do not hear again from parts of the anti-globalisation movement that the WTO is somehow trampling over the interests of developing countries, which in fact constitute the majority of WTO members and are increasingly powerful within ita fact that all of us should welcome.

John Barrett: What practical steps can the Secretary of State take to convince the poorest developing countries that what is in our interests is also in theirs? I welcome what she says about high tariffs on sugar, but will she also extend the idea to dairy products? We may see the negotiations as a failure, but for the poorest nations this is a matter of life and death.

Patricia Hewitt: I have said repeatedly that the developed world is not going to convince developing countries of our good intentions if we preach and impose liberalisation abroad but practise protectionism at home. That is why the reforms that we secured at the Agriculture Council in June are of such enormous importance. They may not represent everything that weand some otherswanted, but they are a very significant step forward. Part of our task is to continue to discuss with developing countries the benefits that can come to them as we implement those reforms.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the very welcome development of the group of 21 has forced the de-linking of farm subsidies from investments? Will she use the gap between now and December to ensure that the United States addresses the issue of its huge farm subsidies and dumping of products, which are killing the livelihoods of many third-world farmers, and that we respect the independence of third-world nations? They want investment to be made not solely on the terms of the wealthy in westto ensure the return of 100 per cent. of their profits to western interestsbut in the light of the needs of poor people in the poorest countries.

Patricia Hewitt: I pointed out earlier the damage that food aid and export credits, as well as export subsidies, do to farmers in the developing world. One of the arguments that we madealbeit unsuccessfullyfor a WTO agreement on investment was that from the point of view of developing countries, multilateral rules on investment would be preferable to their having to negotiate bilateral agreements with the USA or other major players. Such agreements generally include far more stringent requirements on investment, which can prove very problematic for some developing countries.

Chris Grayling: It is disappointing that no Minister from the Department for International Development has bothered to turn up for this statement.
	Does the Secretary of State really believe, given all that we have heard, that the political will exists in the developed world to undertake the level of dismantling of protectionist structuresin agriculture, for examplenecessary to create a truly fair trade system for the developed and developing worlds?

Patricia Hewitt: I have no doubt at all that the will is there within Europe. As I said, the CAP reforms that we agreed in June are a very significant step forward. We must to continue to work with, but also challenge, colleagues in other parts of the developed world, so that they step up to the mark themselves. If we do not, and as Cancun made clear, the developing countriesparticularly the larger ones, to whose markets we also want accesswill simply not agree. They must see far greater and more immediate gains for themselves in this round than occurred in the Uruguay round.

Jonathan R Shaw: Is not direct investment in the developing world the right type of investment, because it does not destroy capacity and prevent companies from emerging within those countries? Otherwise, such companies leave and end up in a worse position than when the richer countries made the initial investment.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but in opening their markets to foreign direct investment, let us not forget that the Governments of developing countries retain the right and the responsibility to put in place whatever framework they want for investment in order to protect the local environment, social standards and so forth. That is an issue to which the World Bank and the IMF should also pay attention.

Roy Beggs: I welcome the Government's commitment to assisting poorly developed countries, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that only two of the poorer countriesCambodia and Nepalhave actually acceded to the WTO? How many under-developed countries remain outside, and what special efforts are being made to help them join?

Patricia Hewitt: It is important for the least developed countries to make their own judgment about the point at which they join the WTO and accept the responsibilities as well as the benefits of membership. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I warmly welcome the accession of Cambodia and Nepal. In the EU, we have sought to conclude agreements that will be of special benefit to the least developed countries. Partly as a result of the everything but arms initiative, to which I referred earlier, the EU is nowI think by a long chalkthe largest importer in the entire developed world of agricultural and other products from the least developed countries, and we want to see that increase still further.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her commitment to making further progress in the talks, and I welcome in particular her comments on investment and competition issues. Having been in Cancun, I know how hard she and her officials worked for a successful outcome, and I share her disappointment at the failure to achieve it. Does she agree that the EU and the US need to reflect on the failure to meet prior deadlines in negotiations regarding both special and differential treatment, which particularly affects the poorest countries in the world, and also on the failure to deal with issues of implementation? If we are to follow the spirit of the Doha agenda, we must now recommit to those issues and make substantial offers.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since we launched the Doha round, we have unfortunately missed every deadline in the trade negotiations, so she is right that we must redouble our efforts and make offers that will enable us to secure agreements.

Norman Lamb: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's renewed commitment to multilateralism, but does she agree that the WTO as an organisation now faces a massive challenge, with the US vigorously pursuing bilateral and regional agreements and with Commissioner Lamy being reported today as questioning the EU's commitment to multilateralism? What specific steps need to be taken to get the Doha round back on track? Given that she said in her statement that we need to find ways of improving processes, does she have any specific proposals for reforming the WTO?

Patricia Hewitt: I said that I thought we all needed to reflect on what went wrong at Cancun, and I propose to reflect for a little longer than 48 hours. However, I have already said that we will discuss through the Council of Ministers the approach that the EU should take and how to strengthen the multilateral system. Nothing that I have heard from Commissioner Lamy suggests that the Commission wants to weaken the multilateral trading system. We will discuss it with colleagues in the Council of Ministers and work, as I said, with the WTO secretariat to help ensure that the EU itself and other countries work in Geneva on the basis of the compromises that we were beginning to reach in Cancun and the offers made there. We want to avoid everyone falling back into their own positions or simply giving up on the WTO and going off into bilateral agreements.

Tony McWalter: While commending the energy and moral commitment of my right hon. Friend and her team, and wishing her the very best for future rounds of negotiations, may I express a certain disquiet at her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen)? She seemed to commend industrialised agriculture over small-scale producers. Such agricultural mega-businesses not only profit from very intense subsidies but benefit from the depression of oil prices, which makes fertiliser and the transport of agricultural produce cheaper, and they often avoid having to pay for the environmental damage that they cause. We need to take a different approach to such businesses, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will think seriously about the future of smaller-scale production, which could bring about a more realisable and sustainable agriculture for many of the world's developing countries.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's commitment to sustainable agriculture, whether in Europe or in developing countries. I am sure that he would share my commitment to ensuring that small-scale subsistence farmers are not left in the poverty that now afflicts them. One of the ways forward is to ensure, through measures for special and differential treatment and for special products, that Governments in developing countries have the policies base on which to ensure that vulnerable producers in rural communities are properly supported and protected. That also needs to be taken into account by the World Bank and the IMF.

Harry Barnes: A major way in which the poverty-stricken in this country advanced their lot against the filthy rich was obtaining the vote on an equal basis. Is not that type of pattern within the WTO something that is necessary if we want to secure wider membership and the type of agreements that will be beneficial to the third world?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is, of course, right about the importance of democracy, but let us not forget that the WTO is itself based on the principle of one country, one vote. That is why the developing countries have such a strong voice within it.

BILL PRESENTED

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots)

Mr. Christopher Leslie presented a Bill to make provision for piloting in certain regions different methods of voting at the European Parliamentary general election in 2004 and at certain local elections held at the same time; and to enable consequential alterations to be made to voting procedures at local elections. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 160].

Stray Animals

David Amess: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for stray animals and for their ownership; and for connected purposes.
	In all our constituencies, as we walk up and down the streets visiting people, we often see pinned to trees notices advertising various animals that have been lost and found. I wonder whether the House has any idea that re-homing animals is in no sense a straightforward matter. Sadly, we live in an increasingly litigious society. Not a week goes by without a new story of individuals suing someone for what most right-thinking people would regard as trivial or malicious reasons. Although one would not think so, that happens even in the world of animal welfare and care. Unfortunately, the excellent work that individuals and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals undertake in re-homing stray animals is threatened by the lack of legal certainty in this area.
	The Bill that I seek to persuade the House to accept would clear up the anomalies and introduce some common sense into an area of law that has been neglected for too long. In moving the Bill, I hope to achieve two clear objectives. First, the Bill would assist individuals and organisations to re-home animals more quickly, thereby improving animal welfare. Secondly, it would update our nation's legislation and raise it to the standard enjoyed by many other modern democracies.
	Under the current position, literally thousands of individuals, along with large and small charities, regularly re-home stray animalsand I join all hon. Members in paying tribute to those people. In very many cases, the animal is reunited with its owner. Just as often, a new owner is found and the animal goes off to a new, loving homea happy ending in all senses. That frees up space in the re-homing centre for more strays to be taken in. Howeverand this is where our law is insufficientthose hard-working individuals have to go to inordinate lengths to prove that they have sought to identify the original owner. If they do not, there is currently no defence to any future civil action by a person claiming to be the owner of the animal.
	I recently spoke to a senior RSPCA inspector from the east of England who told me that all too often he and his colleagues get stuck in the middle when owners seek to reclaim animals they believe to be theirs. Only last week, he had to mediate between an aggressive individual trying to take back a cat more than a month after it had been re-homed. Along with all the other excellent work the RSPCA inspectorate undertakes, we should not expect it to have the wisdom of Solomon.
	My Bill would strike a balance between trying to reunite an animal with its owner and dealing with animals efficiently, so that capacity is available for more stray animals to be re-homed. Fortunately, there is an excellent precedent that proves that such a change is not just possible in theory, but actually works in practice. It is the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999, and I hope that the Government will study it closely.
	In New Zealand, a section of the 1999 Act deals exclusively with the disposal of animals in custody. It states:
	Where a person (other than the owner of an animal) gives that animal into the custody of an approved organisation and that approved organisation accepts custody of that animal, or where an approved organisation takes any animal into its custody, that approved organisation . . . Must take reasonable steps to identify the owner of the animal; and . . . May take such steps as it considers necessary or desirable to prevent or mitigate any suffering of the animal.
	Furthermore, it states:
	Where the approved organisation cannot identify the owner of the animal, an inspector or auxiliary officer acting for the approved organisation may . . . After the animal has been in the custody of the organisation for at least 7 days . . . Sell the animal; or . . . Find a home for the animal; or . . . Destroy or otherwise dispose of the animal in such manner as the inspector or auxiliary officer thinks fit.
	The Act also states that if the organisation or individual has made every effort to locate the owner, it may then re-home the animal, without fear that the original owner, at some point in the future, can come and claim their animal. That may seem harsh, but it is a practical solution according to all the advice that I have been given.
	The effect of such a change would be that more stray animals could be re-homed more quickly, and more animals could be received into re-homing centres. That would lead to a decrease in the number of animals that tragically have to be destroyed through lack of space. It would also certainly lead to a saving in time and money for animal centres that encounter the problem. We should not forget that many of those wonderful homes depend on charitable giving. People who give money do not want it to disappear into the bottomless pit of litigation.
	I understand that some people may be concerned by the Bill and may say that seven days is too short a period before strays can be re-homed. However, the provision is in line with the local authority obligation created in respect of stray dogs by the Environmental Protection Act 1991. Some may be of the view that 14 days might be appropriate to allow for owners who are away on holiday when their animal is found. I say loud and clear that anyone who owns a pet should be responsible in how they care for it. Responsible pet ownership dictates that proper arrangements should be made for pets while people go away on holiday, so that the animals do not stray. Those left in charge should be responsible enough to carry out all reasonable efforts to find the animal, in the event that it does stray.
	I am grateful for the support that I have received for this modest measure from both sides of the House. As a result of the Bill, I hope that my phone will not ring endlessly, and that people will not visit my house, to ask me to mediate in such matters or to find homes for stray animals. I gently say to the Government, given that we do not have much time left in this Session, that I hope that I am pushing at an open door and that the Government will seek to take this modest measure forward when they finalise the arrangements for the Gracious Speech. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mrs. Helen Clark, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Bob Russell, Bob Spink, Angela Watkinson and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

Stray Animals

Mr. Amess accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for stray animals and for their ownership; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 161].

Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Paul Murphy: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords]
	Timetable
	1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, nine hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time
	(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions, and Ways and Means resolutions, in connection with bills), on any financial resolutions relating to the Bill;
	(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolutions relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved, or Motion made, by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	Subsequent stages
	6.(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	7.(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on, or relevant to, any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	8.(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	9. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	10. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
	11. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	12. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
	13. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	14.(1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Four o'clock, Three o'clock or Seven o'clock (as the case may be), but
	(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
	(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
	15. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	16. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the House the urgency with which the Government seek to progress this Bill, and why it is necessary to take the Bill through all its stages in this House today. It would not be appropriate to dwell in detail on the broader context in the debate on this timetable motion. Members will have an opportunity to debate the Government's analysis, and their policy, more fully on Second Reading, and I intend to address those issues in my speech in that debate. However, I should like to say a few short words now about the context to explain clearly why the Government consider that the Bill before the House today merits urgent consideration.
	On 1 May this year, the Government published a series of proposals for the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement and the restoration of the devolved institutions on a stable and inclusive basis. Those had been drawn up in the light of our earlier discussions with the Irish Government and political parties at Hillsborough. As the House well knows, we were unable to proceed with the implementation of all those proposals in the absence of satisfactory commitments on an end to paramilitary activity.
	We have proceeded, with the Irish Government, to take forward certain elements of those proposals as a contribution to building trust and confidence, and the Taoiseach and Prime Minister, on 2 July, reaffirmed the importance of that commitment.
	Among those proposals that we have committed to implement is the agreement between the two Governments on monitoring and compliance. In that text, we undertook to establish an independent body to monitor commitments given regarding the implementation of the Good Friday agreement and the restoration of stable institutions. The Government also undertook to seek to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to broaden the range of measures available to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and ultimately to the British Government, to respond to the commission's recommendations.
	Of course, those are complex proposals, in a completely new field. They required a good deal of working up. Apart from which, the practical side of setting up the commission also required a good deal of workin particular in the search for people of the highest ability and authority to become members of the commission. I am happy to say that I believe we were successful in that search. The result of this was that it was not possible to bring forward our plans before the summer.
	We all recognise the urgency now of early political advance in Northern Ireland. As I shall outline in my speech on Second Reading, it is our ambition as a Government, quite as much it is everybody else's, that there should be elections at the earliest possible stage to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and also that they should be successful elections, in the sense that they will carry with them a real prospect of a return to devolved Government.

John Taylor: Last Tuesdayeight days agoin the Committee Corridor, an Order in Council was treated as a statutory instrument. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), offered the Committee a lengthy litany of things that would need to be done by way of acts of completion prior to elections being held. Will the Secretary of State sayeither now or later today, after a period of reflectionwhether the litany offered to the Committee must be thoroughly and entirely discharged before there can be elections?

Paul Murphy: I shall talk to my right hon. Friend during the course of the debate so that I can answer the hon. Gentleman more fully on that point, but I am assured that she said that getting acts of completion from the IRA was an important part of getting all the institutions involvedof which the Assembly is only oneup and running. That has been made clear for months and months. Assembly elections were not held because we knew that the Executivethe Government of Northern Irelandcould not be active unless there was trust and confidence between the parties involved. That trust can be established on the basis of acts of completion.

Lembit �pik: I do not want to turn this debate into a Question Time about Northern Ireland, but does the Secretary of State accept that the postponement of the elections in itself has become a barrier to achieving the acts of completion and the normalisation of the political process that we all want?

Paul Murphy: I have no doubt that the issue of the elections is hugely important. I shall return to it in the debate on Second Reading, but I fear that I would be stretching the patience of Mr. Deputy Speaker if I did not stick to the timetable motion before the House.

Ian Paisley: Perhaps it would be helpful to those of us from Northern Ireland if the Secretary of State were to inform the House, at an early stage in the debate, whether the Government were minded to accept the amendment on this matter agreed in the Lords in the past few days.

Paul Murphy: We will come to the relevant clause later in the debate, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to send that amendment back to the other place. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with that particular clause later, and will refer to that matter.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend answer a timetable point? Although everyone agrees that there is a need for urgency in this matter, I am waiting with bated breath for his explanation of why it all has to be dispatched in one parliamentary day. If there is no Committee stageas was the case with the previous legislation piloted through the House by the Secretary of Statewill that mean, ipso facto, that that Lords amendment is accepted?

Paul Murphy: We must wait until we get to the Committee stage to discuss the details of the amendments.
	The return to devolved government requires trust and confidence in the community that departures from the fundamental values of the agreementincluding, crucially, the definitive ending of paramilitary activitywill be addressed with determination. In that regard, we believe that the independent monitoring commission has a fundamental role.
	That explains our anxiety to have the commission in place as soon as possible. Developing that confidence remains a serious challenge to all participants in the process. The sooner we can have all the arrangements in place, the sooner we can formally establish the commission. That, we believe, will be a substantial step along the road to creating the conditions for a real step forward.
	The Bill will place the IMC on a proper statutory footing, and so allow it to undertake the full range of its functions as soon as possible. However, its passage would also send an important signal that the Government are committed to taking the steps that we have outlined as essential to promoting trust and confidence. We very much hope that it will be possible for elections and a restoration of devolved government to take place as soon as possible. The passage of this Bill will help to maximise the chances of such progress in the near future.
	I am aware that we have sometimes had cause to ask the House to consider legislation relating to Northern Ireland in relatively quick time. I hope that Opposition Membersand, indeed, Labour Memberswill draw some comfort from the terms of today's guillotine motion, which allows us scope for nearly a full day's debate, should the House so choose.
	I hope that hon. Members will agree that the compressed timetable for the Bill's passage, although always regrettable, is necessary in the circumstances, in the interest of the political advance that I believe all sides of this House wish to achieve.

Quentin Davies: The Opposition reject, absolutely and with passion, the Government's pattern of imposing automatic timetables on all Bills. We are not alone in that. The whole country, and anyone in the world brought up to observe democratic principles, will consider the motion deeply offensive to those principles and to the spirit of the parliamentary system.
	In pragmatic terms, the motion is unnecessary. We would have been perfectly happy to discuss a reasonable timetable for the Bill with the Secretary of State. That would have allowed proper reflection between Second Reading and Committee, between Committee and Report, and then between Report and Third Reading. That is what should happen in any parliamentary system that is not being made a mockery of by an arrogant Government, but I am afraid that that is the case today.

Paul Murphy: I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather over-egging the pudding, but does he accept that the length of time available today is, in essence, the equivalent of almost two days' debate in the House?

Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I reveal the private conversations that we have had, as they are very much to his credit. I would not reveal anything from a private conversation that was not to his credit, or not within the spirit of that conversation. However, the agreement that we came to resulted in our getting more time than we would have got otherwise. Of course I am grateful for small merciesfor crumbs from this almighty Government's tablebut that will not prevent me, or those of my colleagues who have the same problems in other departmental areas, from making genuine protests. There must be no mistake about the seriousness of our feelings about the attitude to Parliament taken by the Government since they were first elected.
	I have said already that the Government's approach would be offensive to anyone of genuine democratic principle and bent. I am sure that that applies to many Labour Members too, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has just expressed his view on the matter. It has nothing to do with party politics, but with the manner in which Parliament should operate. Let there be no misunderstanding of our strong feelings on the subject.
	That said, the arrangement to which the Secretary of State referred means that we have more time than would normally be the case on a Wednesday, especially when a statement and other business have also been scheduled. We have been promised nine hours on the Bill and, in that spirit, I shall ask Opposition Members not to adopt our usual course of dividing the House and voting against the timetable motion, but to do everything possible to allow us to use the greatest possible proportion of the time to discuss the substance of this very important Bill.
	I wish to leave one thought on the record. The Secretary of State in many ways endorsed everything that I have said. I noted his comments, and he said that the proposals in the Bill were complex proposals in a completely new field. They are indeed, and I entirely endorse his description of the Bill. However, I hope that he appreciates that his description is the greatest possible indictment of the perfunctory way in which the Government and their Whipsnot the Secretary of State personallybelieve that Parliament should discharge its obligations.

Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I am not going to take interventions, as I want to get on to the substance of the Bill. There should be no misunderstanding on any side of the strength of the Opposition's feelings on this very important subject, which goes to the heart of the way in which Parliament operates.

Andrew MacKinlay: To divide the House on the motion would compound the charade of the process before us. I welcome the fact that the Conservatives do not intend to divide since that would be a waste of our time. None the less, it would be wrong to let pass the way the Government are bouncing through a Bill in one legislative day. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, but he did not answer my question about why we have to go through all stages in one day. He will try to imply that I and others do not understand the gravity of the situation or the need for expedition. We do, and there is no reason why the Bill must go through in one fell swoop.
	The Secretary of State is making a habit of this. He behaved the same way on the legislation deferring Northern Ireland elections to such an extent that the House was denied a Committee stage. That was reprehensible, and I rather thought that even this Secretary of State might have learned that that truly offended Parliament. It may sound old-fashioned, but there are those of us who believe in this place and its job of scrutinising and probing the Executive and examining legislation. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would not repeat what he had done.

Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Members from Northern Ireland have no other way to express their feelings on the motion than by voting on it? What is the difference between voting on this motion today and dividing the House on all the other occasions on which it has also been a charade because the Opposition know that they cannot win the vote? We must have our rights, and I regret that Members whose parties represent absolutely no seats in Northern Ireland are telling us that we are not allowed to vote against something totally obnoxious to the people of Northern Ireland.

Andrew MacKinlay: If hon. Members want to divide the House, we will have to make a decision. I sympathise with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) because the 1 million and more people of Northern Ireland do not enjoy enough scrutiny of their legislation in this place. Much of it goes through by Order in Council and cannot be amended in the Delegated Legislation Committees that deal with those orders. When there is primary legislation, we are surely obliged to put it through the House in the proper manner, including a Committee stage that allows proper scrutiny.
	All the textbooks on the British constitution say that we debate broad principles on Second Reading, and then a Bill goes to a Committee of the whole House or a Committee Upstairs to be gone through line by line. I tell students that that is complete nonsense. Governments hardly ever accept amendments, and the few that they do accept often put right their botched legislation. If I am wrong to make that charge, perhaps the Secretary of State can help me by saying whether a day has been earmarked for the House of Lords to consider any amendment that we may make to the Bill. I hope that he will say that a date has been pencilled in. That would at least demonstrate that he is in listening mode and is prepared to accept some amendments to improve the Bill.
	I have referred to what happened when we discussed a previous Bill, and the House will recall that that Bill was introduced in the House of Commons and did not have a Committee stage. It was, however, thoroughly examined in the House of Lords and was, in my opinion, improved there, or at the very least amended. My fear is that tonight's Bill, having been already through the House of Lords, has arrived here, and that, come hell or high water, there is no way the Secretary of State will allow any amendment to it. That would be reprehensible, and if he thinks that I am criticising him unfairly, he might indicate that he is prepared to consider amendments and provide further time in the House of Lords to debate them.

Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman suspect that the Bill before us did not begin its passage in this House last week because it might have been improved if it had gone to the House of Lords this week?

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman may well be correct. In considering the charges that I am making against the Government, Members should bear it in mind that the elected House of Commons, which contains representatives from throughout Great Britain and, in particular, Northern Ireland, is being given one day for debate whereas their lordships, not one of whom has been elected by the people, had two days and an interruption over a weekend in which they had the opportunity for review and reflection and to table amendments.
	It is a travesty that we are being asked to rubber-stamp the Bill today. The danger is that if we acquiesce in that by our silence, it will happen again and again. Nor will it be confined to Northern Ireland legislation; on more and more general legislation, Secretaries of State will tell us that it is of the utmost importance that Bills are passed in hours. They will tell Back Benchers, particularly those on their own side, You're not playing the game, you're being uncomradely, you just want to make an exhibition of yourself. I know all that they say about me, but I can tell them that it will not wash. Until the people of Thurrock put me out, the Secretary of State will have to put up with me telling him that he is turning Parliament into a charade, and he can wave his hands about all he likes.

Paul Murphy: That is offensive.

Andrew MacKinlay: If the Secretary of State thinks that I am being offensive, I will be happy to give way.
	I want the Secretary of State to say why it is necessary to rubber-stamp the Bill and bounce it through the House of Commons today without proper scrutiny or an opportunity for reflection. I want a Secretary of State who is prepared to listen and to accept improvements to his legislation.

Lembit �pik: It is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) outlining the increasing concern among many of us about the Government's arrogance in assuming that they should be able to use programme motions to speed things through even when there are a considerable number of matters to debate. It is fair to say that, like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), we were consulted on the timing, and, in my judgment, nine hours should be sufficient to do all we need to do, especially if we get quickly through the programme motion. For that reason, it would be disingenuous of us to take any opportunity that may arise to oppose the Government if a vote is called. On that principle, we shall not resist the programme motion, but we act with little enthusiasm.
	I am extremely concerned that in a previous Northern Ireland debate, which the hon. Member for Thurrock said had set a precedent, there was at least one occasion on which a Minister spoke at such length that those who are in the front line when it comes to justifying the legislation to those most affected by itthe Northern Ireland Memberswere more or less excluded from speaking. We have heard from Members who represent Northern Ireland parties that they felt some frustration about the strictures of previous programme motions. I very much welcome the fact that a Labour Member has sought to highlight to the Secretary of State the dangerous precedents that some of us feel are being set when Bills are taken through in just one day.
	The various legislative stages have traditionally been staggered, for very good reasons. We were meant to have an opportunity to raise general issues without going into detail on Second Reading. There would then be an opportunity between Second Reading and the Committee stage for Ministers and their representatives to seek consensus and resolution in those areas legitimately raised as concerns by participants in the debate. After that, there was meant to be a further opportunity before Report for cool reflection on matters raised by Government Back Benchers or members of other parties that the Government might not have felt they could modify in the heat of debate but which, with the benefit of a slightly longer period, they could accept were valid concerns. After that, there would be a Third Reading when we could survey the work that had been done.
	If all those stages are gone through in one day, all that opportunity is thrown out of the window. The Government have prevented us from having those quiet conversations through the usual channels and there is a danger of railroading the House and parties that are concerned about this legislationin this case, the other place and the Dublin Governmentin a way that will create unnecessary and unwanted frictions. I counsel the Secretary of State to reflect on the potential consequences of moving so fast with legislation which almost by definition walks the boundary between the uncontroversialthe areas that fall within the terms of the Good Friday agreementand the controversialthe areas in which it challenges that agreement.
	The Secretary of State mentioned elections, which are perhaps outside the terms of reference of the programme motion. However, I hope that we will get a chance to express our considerable concerns and the scepticism on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the wisdom of postponing the elections, not least because that increases the expectation in some quarters that, having postponed elections in Northern Ireland once, the Government will find it less difficult to do so again. Perhaps we can return to that matter on Second Reading.
	In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats have always sought to walk a transparent and honest line in our dealings with Ministers[Interruption.] We have done so in our dealings with my portfoliomatters relating to the north and south of Ireland. We have tried to do so in a way that enables people to understand where we stand, regardless of whether we expect them to align themselves with our position. While we may have had differences with Ministers and representatives of the Northern Ireland parties, our commitment to the Good Friday agreement and the peace process cannot be questioned. We sincerely hope that Ministers will play a straight bat with us, that they will act in good faith in the debates in this Chamber and that we can be confident that all discussions with the Dublin Government will be held in the same context.
	The peace process can be successful only if people can trust each other. Therefore, as we discuss this controversial legislation today, let us hope that the debate will have the foundation of that good faith. I never feel positive about any programme motion, but under the circumstances and given the sensible consultation conducted by representatives of the Ministers, the Liberal Democrats are not inclined to resist this motion.

Harry Barnes: Trade unions are aware of the distinction between procedural and substantive agreements. For example, they believe that getting the procedure agreement for their negotiations right is tremendously important in enabling them to sort out acceptable substantive agreements on issues, principles, terms and conditions. The peculiarity for me today is that the Billthe substantive issueis basically acceptable, but the procedures being used to deal with it are not. Of course, if we went through the normal, proper procedures, I might develop reservations about the substantive elements of the legislation, as I would have the benefit of the cross-fertilisation of ideas that results from discussion.
	The arguments outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) are of great significance. My hon. Friend is a great parliamentarian, both in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We should all recognise that, emulate the positions that he takes and follow the avenues that he chooses. I am happy to associate myself with him in this matter. He pointed out that the other place has had a better bite of the cherry with this measure. It had a formal First Reading on 8 September to enable the Bill to be printed. It met for a Second Reading on 12 September and had the weekend during which to reflect before dealing with the remaining stages on 15 September when the measure was sent to us. We only have today. Given that we have returned for a fortnight, the arrangements could have been better. Perhaps the Bill should have originated in this House and gone to the other place later, where we could have seen what transpired.
	I feeling considerably disquieted by the procedure but I want to get on to the substantive measures contained in the Bill, so I will take the halfway-house position suggested by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. I shall not vote against the programme motion, although I will not vote for it because I want to register my disquiet.
	Interestingly, we are able to pursue this Bill because of the alteration in the timetable of the House. We have returned for a convenient fortnight. I am keen that that fortnight's return should continue, as it gives Back Benchers access to procedures of the House that would not otherwise be available to them. No doubt, the Government will also find it useful so that they can push through any measures that are lying around which they might find it difficult to push through on another occasion. If they are going to do that, they should respect hon. Members and enable them to be involved in the procedures of the House and to reflect on the processes.

David Trimble: I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State on one point. During his contribution, the word guillotine fell from his lips. I was delighted to hear that instead of the rather ugly new Labour phrase timetable motion. Guillotines are what they are. It is wrong to guillotine legislation, but the Government routinely guillotine everything. As a consequence, the opportunity for scrutiny in this House has been greatly reduced.
	Many people outside this place are talking about the ineffectiveness of Parliament. People do not realise that the main reasons for the decline of Parliament are the so-called modernisation ideas introduced by this Government, every one of which has disadvantaged the House in carrying out its functions.
	Some hon. Members have referred to the contrast between this House, where this Bill is to be rammed through in one day, and the House of Lords, where it has received more serious consideration. Some may think that that is due to the fact that the Government have a huge majority in this place but not in the other place. I do not think that that is the case; it is simply that the House of Lords has retained greater control over its own procedures than we have. I suspect that the so-called reforms that the Government are proposing for the other place largely have the purpose of trying to subject it to the same amount of control as they exercise here. I very much hope that they will be unsuccessful.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman used the term guillotine, which is an appropriate expression given the procedure's effect on parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The guillotine is all the more regrettable given that the Bill had its genesis in an agreement between Governments that was made in April. There ought to have been more of an opportunity for this place to look at what those Governments were doing.

David Trimble: I will come back to the genesis of the measure in a moment. Although I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supported my point about the guillotine and I welcome that, it is none the less my intention to disrupt the cosy consensus that has emerged between the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats on whether the House should divide on the motion. It has always been our view that guillotines should be opposed on principle. That will continue to be our view, so we invite those hon. Members who have spoken against the motion, rather than sitting on the Bench for 15 minutes twiddling their thumbs, to carry their principled view through to the Lobby with us when we divide the House.
	I take issue with the Secretary of State on the genesis of the Bill. His account of the origin of the Bill was seriously defective. The Bill owes its being to discussions held not only in April, but in June and July last year. I remind the Secretary of State of a statement made in the House by his predecessor on 25 July 2002, when I think the Government said they were sympathetic to the proposal that there be some form of machinery to supervise and monitor ceasefires. At the same time, we were pressing for sanctions in the event of breaches of ceasefires. It is from that commitment that the measure flows.
	The significance of that point is that the Bill has not come up in a hurry. The proposals have been around for 14 months; they have had a long gestation. The Bill could have come forward much sooner, and had the Government been better focused and followed the advice given by my hon. Friends and me last year, it would have done so. If there is urgency, it is entirely due to the Government's dilatorinessalthough I even doubt that the question is urgent.
	I have said enough to indicate my party's attitude to the motion. Although we shall necessarily divide the House, I do not want to take any more time from the discussion in substance. We have made our point.

Seamus Mallon: On this issue, I am normally on the side of the angels; over the years, I have agreed with those who are opposed to guillotines. However, this case is slightly different.
	It is remarkable how often the main point is missed. In reality, under the Bill, we cannot amend, change or omit any of the functions of the commission. Those functions, under the 15 clauses of the draft agreement between the Government and the Irish Government are received from that draft international agreement, not from legislation. In terms of the Bill, Parliament has no capacity to deal with the functions of the commission.
	Let me invoke authority for the Government's position, as confirmed in another place by Lord Williams of Mostyn:
	I remind the Committee, the commission receives its functions from the agreement.[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 667.]
	He said, in effect, that an amendment to add to those functions could not become law under the Bill. For that reason, my complaint in respect of the procedural issue is not about the length of time but about the fact that on at least two substantive points in respect of which I should have liked to change the functions, I cannot do so because they derive not from the Bill but from a draft international agreement.

Alistair Carmichael: rose

Seamus Mallon: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Alistair Carmichael: I am merely honourable. I may be right, but not in that sense.
	My question is simple: is it the hon. Gentleman's thesis that it is now the Executive and not Parliament who are sovereign?

Seamus Mallon: I simply present the point of view set out by the Government spokesman in another place on Monday. As the debate proceeds, I await confirmation that he was right.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Seamus Mallon: I shall give way shortly.
	The point goes to the heart of what has been said not only about the legislative role of Parliament but about the position of a party or an individual Member who wants to amend legislation. I recognise the authority of that Government spokesman. He was saying that we should not try to amend those functions because such amendments cannot become law under the Bill. I am thus precluded from tabling amendments that I would have wanted to make.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in asking for an early statement from the Secretary of State on that point about sovereignty? Why are we wasting our time here this afternoon if we cannot attempt to amend the Bill? Does that not have a bearing on the fundamental power and authority of the House? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the joint agreement between the Governments, because it was not a joint agreement or declaration between the Governments and the parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek clarification from the Secretary of State as to whether those of us who have tabled amendments and new clauses are wasting our time.

Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of Members have tabled amendments to the Bill, yet the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tells us that it cannot be amended. Can we assume that, in accepting those amendments, the House rather than the hon. Gentleman was right?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate rather than for the Chair at this point in time.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for South Antrim (David Burnside) for those interventions.
	According to my understanding of the words of the Government spokesman in another place, the reality is that whatever Parliament's complaints about lack of time, it does not have the capacity to change, amend, add to or subtract from the functions of the international monitoring commission. I may be wrong, or the Government spokesman in another place may be wrong, but as we are discussing procedure I must record that I feel at a disadvantage because if I cannot add at least two further functions, the Committee stage will be rather academic.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is in a bad way if he assumes that anything a Minister says is the oracle of truth. Yesterday, I, too, read what Lord Williams said on Monday and was deeply shocked by it. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will agree that what Lord Williams said was arrant nonsense. Parliament can do what it likes; it can decide what it likes in this or any matterit has no higher authority below heaven. If we change the Bill, it may indeed make inoperative the proposed British-Irish intergovernmental agreement. It will be for the Irish Government to decide whether they want to continue with the agreement and modify it to bring it into line with the Bill. It will be that way round, and I hope that there is no doubt in the mind of anyone in the House about that important constitutional principle.

Seamus Mallon: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we are getting a little way away from the allocation of time motion, which is what we should be discussing.

Seamus Mallon: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give us an assurance, Sir, that we will be permitted to move the amendments when we come to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A selection list for the amendments has been circulated already, and we shall deal with things as we usually do.

Seamus Mallon: I take your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not realised that my simple observation on what the Government spokesman said would lead to such controversy. I do not always have total respect for Ministers, but I have enormous respect for the Minister who made that statement. I believe that he is right, but I await confirmation of that.

George Howarth: Would it not be clearer if my hon. Friend were to put it this way: the fact of the matter is that the House has the right, if it so wishes, to amend the Bill, but, if it does so, that will be a breach of faith in respect of agreements that have been reached between the UK Government and the Irish Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is again being tempted away from the straight and narrow path that I had encouraged him to take. I should be grateful to him if he returned to that path.

Seamus Mallon: I am being tempted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, like Oscar Wilde, I can resist everything except temptation.
	I shall conclude with this point: this issue arose yesterday in the House in the debate on the European Union and, although it was not expressed in the terms in which it is being expressed in relation to this Bill, the same point of principle is involved. I simply flag it up. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence, and I shall return to the matter at a later stage when I will seek clarification. If I am wrong, I fear that the other House has been misled.

Ian Paisley: The Northern Ireland people have been treated in a disgraceful manner again. It used to be that Parliament would fight across the world for the right to hold elections. Now, part of the United Kingdom has been told that it would have an election and that there would be no alteration of it. Then, later on, that election was called off. Now, we are debating something that is to do with parties outside the United Kingdom that relates to whether we will have the right to hold an election. The amazing thing is that we will have an election, according to the Secretary of State, if it gives the right answer. The right answer that he wants is that everyone will bow the knee and say, Yes, we're going to accept what the Government want. Are we in a democracy, or are we not?
	I am amazed at the statements made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) because it does not matter who says anything: Parliament is the supreme court of us all, and it is entitled to say what it wants and pass what it wants. Whether the Government have entered into a cushy agreement with Mr. Aherne and his colleagues in Dublin and agreed it with the high councils of the IRA so that they can come in on the act, and with Mr. Adams and his colleagues, it matters not: the House has a right to say.
	I regret that those hon. Members who can see how the people of Northern Ireland have been treated take this up as though we were wasting time in saying that we will divide the House. The House needs to be divided so that a proper protest can be on record showing that the people elected from Northern Ireland do not want their country to deteriorate into an appendage of two Governments who will make arrangements behind closed doors not only for themselves, but about what the outcome of an election should be.
	It is disgraceful that we will not have time to look fully at the Bill today. The Secretary of State knows very well that some amendments will not be called because there will not be time for them. When he was asked whether he is likely to accept any of those amendments, he was silent. Therefore, we will argue something, but for the Secretary of State and the Government the doors are locked against it and it is all agreed, even before we move the amendments. Who is it agreed with? Is it agreed with paramilitary chiefs, who call the shots in regard to this matter? That is who it is: the IRAand the hand of the IRA is in the House today.
	We then have a further example. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says that we should not really be trying to amend the Bill because we have no authority to do so. All I can say to him is that he should go back and read what the Government spokesman said, and he will find that what was said is not exactly what he said in the House today. Even if it was, it does not alter the fact that the Bill proposes to allow another sovereign state to have an unprecedented say in the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	If another country were to be given an input into the Welsh Assembly, the Secretary of State would be the first on his feet, saying, No, no, we are not going to allow some outside Government to enter into an agreement with the United Kingdom Government to deal with the Welsh people. We have dignity; we have our country; and we have our rights. He would fight, as I am fighting now for the people of Northern Ireland. He would say, No, you can't do that, but he comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us that we have to do such things. What right has the southern Government to tell us what to do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is falling into the trap about which I have already reminded other hon. Members. We are specifically talking about the allocation of time, and he is touching on matters that would probably be better reserved for a little later in the day.

Ian Paisley: I was trying to put the argument, Sir, that if what I am saying is so, what is the use of our talking about time at all? We should not really be here in the House at all today, and I am trying to tell the House about the Bill's origins and to explain why we should have time to discuss it. It has immediate and terrible consequences for the people of Northern Ireland.
	This is not the first time that the Government have treated Northern Ireland like this. On 12 May 2003, the Government hurried the Bill to cancel the Assembly elections through the House in a day, wiping out the right of the people to express their views on a certain subject. The Government were not having it. The IRA did not agree to it; Gerry Adams did not agree to it; they did not agree to it; and the southern Government did not agree to it, so the people of Northern Ireland were not to be allowed to vote.
	When it comes to giving the House scant opportunity to scrutinise its work in Northern Ireland, the Government have repeated their offences over and again against the electorate there. The Government have got into a habit and I fear that if such things are permitted again today, they will be repeated again and again, and, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has told us, they will creep into the legislation for England, Wales and Scotland. So we are carrying a flag for the sovereignty of the House and the sovereignty of those who send people to the House.
	Despite earlier claims that progress would not be made until the IRA moved to abandon violence completely, the Government have been negotiating in secret with the IRA already, after telling us that they would not do so. I asked the Prime Minister a question in the House on 27 November, and he said:
	It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward.[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
	The Prime Minister was saying something that we have been saying for yearsthat we cannot move the democratic process forward until we are dealing with democrats who believe only in the vote, and not in the bullet and the bomb. There was to be no further discussionthe IRA must decommission. The decommissioning issue, however, has almost been forgotten in this whole debate.
	The IRA still has the power, which is increasing every day because of the deterioration of security in Northern Ireland. In east Belfast on Monday night, serious incidents took place. I was called to those incidents as the MEP for the area. The chief of police for east Belfast said to me, Mr. Paisley, are you aware of how many policemen I have tonight for the entire policing of east Belfast? I said no. He said, I have six men. We know from a Police Authority report this week that only 1 per cent. of all the terrible burglaries that have taken place have been solved in 12 months. With that background, what would happen to the people of Northern Ireland if there were a resurgence of the IRA? Those are issues that this House needs to take into account.
	By speeding this legislation through the House, one can presume only that the Government have something that they do not want discussed. If they have a case, why do they not argue it? Why do they not welcome a full exchange of debate in this House? Why not give us time to debate it? Some very important areas in this Bill need to be put under the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny. It is clear from what is contained in these proposals that, rather than punish the IRA, the commission will reward it. Sinn Fein-IRA are no more likely to be removed from Government when this Bill is passed, as was attempted previously. Most of this Bill, although Members of the House may not realise it, is directed against the party that I lead. It attacks those who would not sit down with armed gunmen who were prepared even to carry out a spying operation in Stormont. It is aimed against the Democratic Unionist party. The Irish representative on the commission will have a say in the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly despite what the leader of the Ulster Unionist party tells the country

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now really making a Second Reading speech. I am not sure whether he will seek to catch my eye on Second Reading, but, if so, perhaps he ought to leave himself something to say.

Ian Paisley: I have said my say.

John Spellar: I am mindful, as you have stressed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the narrow terms of the motion and of the need to get on to debates of substance. I stress, however, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that this is not just a day's debate; it is a much-extended day's debate. I give credit to Opposition spokesmen who have been gracious enough to concede that that is the case.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his opening speech, the Government believe that pressing reasons exist for putting this legislation in place as soon as possible. I shall not reiterate those, but suffice it to say that we consider the Bill's swift passage an essential component of our proposals for political progress in Northern Ireland.
	We have taken steps to take account of the concerns of hon. Members, which have been expressed again today, that this legislation should be debated fully. We have provided that additional time, as well as providing that the time not used in this debate on the timetabling motion should be given over to consideration of the Bill. We look forward to a constructive and illuminating debate on that, which I hope will be conducted in a reasonable spirit. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that, enthusiastic as he is when he makes points about which he feels strongly, I wish that he would not personalise them in the way that he often does, particularly in relation to someone whom everyone regards as an extremely honourable Member of the House and honourable Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On reflection, he might regret those comments.

John Taylor: rose

John Spellar: In that spirit, I bring my remarks to a swift close so that we may move to substantive consideration of the Bill.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 21.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill is one of the outcomes of discussions with the Irish Government and Northern Ireland political parties that were held at Hillsborough earlier this year. I acknowledge the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he said that the matter was discussed last summer when the then Secretary of State referred to the points that he mentioned. The Bill represents an essential step along the road to a key objective of the Government that is, I believe, shared by the great majority of hon. Memberselections that lead to the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland on the basis of full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
	The commitment to the agreement includes, most crucially, a commitment to the use of exclusively peaceful and democratic means by all involved in government in Northern Ireland. It also includes a commitment to operate the institutions in good faith. Those matters are the concern of the independent monitoring commission for which the Bill will make provision, and the Bill will confer new powers to deal with departures from those commitments.
	Let me outline the context of the Bill, which represents the efforts of the Government and the Irish Governmentand earlier effortsto encourage political advance in Northern Ireland. It is essential that we secure such an advance. It is almost a year since we were forced to suspend devolved government in Northern Ireland, but we should all remember that devolution has had many successes. Constructive instincts and talents, some of which were unsuspected perhaps even by those who harboured them, found fruitful outlets with great benefits for the public good in Northern Ireland. New methods of working were found that enabled people with widely different political interests to work together for the common goal of all the people in that part of the United Kingdom. Talented people from outside politics came into the political system.
	We still see that promise at work in some areas. I pay tribute to the excellent continuing work of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and district policing partnerships, and especially, given the current circumstances, to the courage of those who face threats and intimidation when playing their part in those institutions. However, as regards the wider political system, such a time has elapsed since suspension that we now risk some of the gains being lost unless we are able to restore devolved government and the institutions in the near future.
	A great deal has already been done by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to establish the foundations on which restoration could take place with broad support among Northern Ireland parties. In the light of discussions with the parties at Hillsborough, we published documents on 1 May that set out our view of the most promising route ahead, including the joint declaration.
	An essential part of that way forward was finding a basis on which there could be confidence among the people of Northern Ireland that paramilitary activity on the part of those associated with political parties in power was definitively at an end. The two Governments made it plain what they meant by an end to paramilitary activity in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration.
	The two Governments also agreed on the establishment of the monitoring and compliance regime that is the subject of the Bill. The commission is intended to build confidence on all sides because confidence and trust are essential for politics to work in Northern Ireland. There must especially be confidence that paramilitary activity is over and that all parties are properly fulfilling their obligations. We remain clear that the agreement marks the only way forward. We do not believe that there is a workable approach that differs from the fundamentals of the agreement, although we will, as ever, try to engage in dialogue all significant strands of opinion in Northern Ireland, including parties that do not share our view.
	There is a good deal of speculation about whether elections will be held this year. We are working hard to try to ensure that they can be held; as the House knows, I profoundly hope that they will be. However, we should remember that elections in themselves are not a panacea for Northern Ireland's problems. If they are to lead to the stable restoration of the institutionsinstability has caused much of the difficulty that has faced Northern Ireland over the yearswe also need to restore trust and confidence. Of course, we also want the restoration of the Executive to govern Northern Ireland, because it is the combination of the institutions that were set up by the Good Friday agreement that governs Northern Ireland. It is not only the Assembly that governsimportant as that isbut the Executive and other institutions.
	People must be reassured not only that paramilitarism is ending, but that if it were to re-emerge there would be authoritative public confirmation of what was occurring and that appropriate measures would be set in hand to remedy and sanction it. That is why the independent monitoring commission and the mechanisms that the Bill will establish will be of central importance.

David Burnside: Will the Secretary of State clarify an important point at this early part of the debate? Will he confirm that if Sinn Fein-IRA, the corporate body that is the republican movement, are proved to have been involved in Colombia, Castlereagh and Stormontgate, the new monitoring body will have no power or authority to expel them retrospectively from the Executive or the institution of the Assembly?

Paul Murphy: Of course, the body is yet to be set up and although the people who will serve on it have been chosen, they will have first to examine the state of what is alleged to be paramilitary activity at this stage. I would not want to comment on individual cases, which are still being investigated by the authorities in three separate legal jurisdictions. As we will discover as the debate continues, the body will have to decide how it will operate. It will have to decide its procedures, which is why it is so important to pass the Bill and to enable it to establish its mechanisms. Perhaps we will address the hon. Gentleman's point in more detail in Committee.
	We intend that the commission will be set up under an international agreement between this Government and the Irish Government. It will make assessments about fundamental requirements of the agreement to which we are both parties, and it will be permitted to report fully on activities in relation to Northern Ireland in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. A draft of the agreement that will establish the body has been made available to the House. We intend that it should be signed in that form and ratified in October following the passage of legislation in the Irish Parliament and formal procedures here. The Bill contains several further provisions in respect of the commission, which I shall outline later.
	In line with the Hillsborough scheme, the commission will be composed of four distinguished individuals who will bring a wide range of valuable experience. They will be able to speak authoritatively, as well as impartially, on central questions of public trust. Two members will be appointed by Her Majesty's Government, one of whom will be from Northern Ireland. One will be appointed by the Irish Government and the other will be appointed by the two Governments on the nomination of the United States Government, who, as so often in recent years, have shown that they are a staunch friend of the peace process and of Northern Ireland in general.
	We have already announced the names of those concerned: Mr. John Grieve, until recently a senior Metropolitan police officer; Lord Alderdice, who served with distinction as the first presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly; Mr. Joseph Brosnan, a former secretary generalwe would call them permanent secretary hereof the Irish Department of Justice; and Mr. Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence in the United States of America. I am deeply grateful to them all for agreeing to serve. I believe that this is a group of very high calibre, with the right skills and experience for the challenging task that the commission faces.

Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State explain the reasoning that led him to decide that there should not be in the commission a respected figure of the Northern Ireland Unionist community? Is that not a deficiency if the objective is to restore confidence?

Paul Murphy: The appointments were based not on whether someone was a Unionist or a nationalist but on the experience that they would bring to bear. The people whose names I have just read out have a wide variety of experience, much of it in the security sector. Of course, the nomination of Lord Alderdice rests very much on his position as the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	The commission will be purely advisory.

Ian Paisley: Should not it be made clear to the House that, with all due respect to Lord Alderdice, he was never elected Speaker by Members of the Assembly? He got in because no one could agree who it should be. To say that he was elected by the Assembly is wrong.

Peter Robinson: Totally wrong.

Ian Paisley: Totally wrong.

Paul Murphy: I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that Lord Alderdice was elected as Speaker. I said that he was the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I suppose he was not unelected by the Assembly because he stayed there for all those years. One imagines that he had the support, at least tacitly, of the majority of Members.

Seamus Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all Assembly Members had the opportunity at every turnaround, every week, of electing a different Speaker, had we so wished? I certainly would like to put on record the fact that Lord Alderdice would not perhaps have been the person whom I would have voted for had a vote taken place, but he did a remarkably good job. In fact, if the circumstance arose, I would vote for him, and I have no doubt that he will perform his functions in the commission with the same ability as he did as Speaker.

Paul Murphy: I give way to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

David Trimble: May I remind the Secretary of State that the term that he used in describing the noble Lord was that he was the greatly respected interim presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in that respect may I assure the Secretary of State that he is absolutely right? Lord Alderdice earned respect on all sides, and the absence since the announcement of his appointment to the commission of any criticism from any serious quarter underlines the extent of the respect that he earned.

Paul Murphy: I agree entirely. Lord Alderdice did his job extremely well. Obviously, one cannot please all the people all the time. I suspect that, whatever name emerged as the Northern Ireland representative, as it were, on the body, it would have been very difficult to have got someone whom 100 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland agreed with, but I will stay absolutely firm on the fact that I believe that he did a very good job and that he is highly qualified to be a member of that body.

David Burnside: On that point, does the Secretary of State agree that one of Lord Alderdice's advantages is that his political pedigree is that of the Alliance party, which cannot make up its mind whether it is Unionist or nationalist and changes every now and again? Therefore, in the ambiguity of political evolution in the past four or five years, he is exactly right for the job.

Paul Murphy: The commission will be purely advisory.

Lembit �pik: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from the impartial position in which I find myself, I have nothing but praise for the courage of the Alliance party in bailing out the Ulster Unionists when they needed its help? More to the point, does he accept that we run the risk in this debate of setting the precedent of appointing the entire House as the appointments panel for the membership of the IMC? Will he therefore give his judgment on the most effective way of ensuring that we have the right four people, whomever they may be, to serve on the commission?

Paul Murphy: Members were appointed by the Governments. Obviously, we looked very carefully at the background, experience and expertise of the people concerned. I am not sure whether it would be worth continuing to discuss individuals in this debate, but I repeat that I think that the four people who have been appointed will be do a very good job indeed.

Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said he was neutral, but I thought that the Alliance party was a sister party of the Liberal Democrats. May I press the Secretary of State not on the quality and character of the four, for I have no difficulty with that, but on the question of whom the commission will be reporting to and how will it report? Will what it says be published clearly, or will it be massaged by Government at some level?

Paul Murphy: I hope that we will be able to address all those issues not just in what I have to sayI will touch on some of them in a few momentsbut in Committee. Those matters are, of course, crucial to the understanding of the mechanisms.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would help hon. Members to know what time is going to be allotted. I understand that there is nine hours, but there is no set time for Committee. I understand that the Second Reading debate can run for all that time. Is that so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The total time for the debate, including the debate we have had on the allocation of time motion, is nine hours. There is no specific time for any particular section of that, so the length of the Second Reading debate is entirely a matter for hon. Members who contribute to it.

Paul Murphy: It is up to us how we deal with those matters, but it is important that we have a reasonable amount of time to discuss some of the detail that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned.
	The commission, which will be advisory, will deliver its assessments of the matters referred to it, and may recommend remedial action and measures that the Assembly might take under its powers, as extended by the Bill, but it will make no substantive decision. If the commission recommends that measures should be taken, it becomes a matter for the agreement institutions, and ultimately for the Government.
	The commission will have three remits, the first of which will be to examine and to report on paramilitary activity. The draft agreement makes it clear that that covers every aspect of paramilitary activity: not only bombing and shooting but training, targeting, carrying out so-called punishment beatings, and all the other associated activities, including those set out in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration.

Quentin Davies: This would be a good moment to answer the very pertinent question that has already been asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), which is whether the commission will be able to undertake investigations into previousthat is to say, up until nowalleged breaches, including Castlereagh, Stormontgate, Colombia and so forth, and to make appropriate recommendations, or whether it will be limited to looking at events that follow its setting up.

Paul Murphy: I have not forgotten that point. If the hon. Gentleman would wait a little longer, I hope to be able to give him the answer to those questions.
	We shall provide the commission with all the support that we can, and so too, I believe, will the Irish Government. However, the body will reach its own conclusions. The commission will consider progress on security normalisation, which is a key element of the 1998 Good Friday agreement that has yet to be fully implemented. While the security situation that we have faced has prevented us from moving as quickly as we would have wished, the Government have nonetheless made significant progress in this area. I pay tribute to the security forces for all that they have done to meet that objective while ensuring at the same time that the people of Northern Ireland continue to be properly protected.
	Let me make it clear that the programme of normalisation outlined in the Hillsborough texts is linked to the ending of paramilitary activity. Monitoring of that will not begin until the Government set it in train, although at our request the Commission will be able to report on normalisation activity in recent years, and we intend it to start on that at an early stage. The commission will, finally, also be responsible for investigating certain conduct in the political field. The agreement, in its pledge of office, imposes important standards of behaviour, which, if they are not observed, mean that the institutions cannot function properly. The commission may investigate complaints that a party or Minister is in breach of the pledge.
	There is a long-standing convention that matters relating essentially to internal Northern Ireland institutional affairs which, as we all know, in the political talks leading to the agreement were called strand 1 issues, should be decided by people from Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom alone. So, for example, in the talks, those issues were discussed in a format chaired by the British Governmentin fact, by myselfwithout Irish representatives being present. There were concerns that that principle would be undermined in the scheme introduced at Hillsborough, and we have reflected on those concerns. I believe that the draft agreementthe international agreementfully respects the convention. In so far as complaints made to the commission concern the operation of the internal institutions of Northern Ireland, they will be considered only by those two members of the commission who are appointed by the British Government. The other two members of the commission will not be concerned with them at any point.
	In respect of paramilitary activity and political breaches, the commission or the two members concerned will be required to report their findings and, where they consider it appropriate, recommend what measures they envisage the Assembly taking. Their reports will be published. However, as I have said, decisions are for the Assembly, and ultimately, if it cannot agree, for the British Government.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State has made the point that political breaches will be considered by the two appointees of Her Majesty's Government. However, what is the position when it comes to the Secretary of State taking action? Will he take action if he needs to do so alone, or will he first consult the Dublin Government and involve them before he makes a decision? In the latter case, Dublin is involved in strand 1 matters.

Paul Murphy: The Dublin Government are not involved in making the decision. May I make it absolutely clear that decisions on political issues should rest with the Assembly, both through the implementation group and the Assembly as a whole? The Assembly, acting as a body corporate, should ideally deal with those issues. It will be self-regulating and will deal with its own disciplinary matters. If that fails, the agreement resulting from the Hillsborough talks is that the British Government will deal with the matter because it is a strand 1 matter.
	Of course, we consult the Irish Government on all issues, but at the end of the day, the decision is ours. It is important that that should happen. The operation of all the institutions derived from the Good Friday agreement, because the agreement was set up between two Governments and the political parties, involves collective discussions. However, it is quite clear that when it comes to decision making the decision rests with me and the British Governmentof course it does. I shall return to the issues in more detail later and make the position clear. I would not want to mislead either the House or the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on some of the details.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: rose

Paul Murphy: Before the hon. Gentleman speaks, may I say that I want to clarify some of the issues later.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State said that matters relating to the Assembly's internal affairs are for the Assembly and the implementation group to determine. Why do we need an independent commission to monitor the conduct of parties in the Assembly in the first place, apart from the issue of a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, if the implementation group will decide what happens?

Paul Murphy: Certainly, it is for the implementation group in the Assembly in the first instance to try to decide how to deal with these issues. As I said, I hope that it will do so, and that such matters will come to the Government very much as a last resort. Obviously, it was a matter of debate in the discussion which took place in the spring whether in fact the commission should or should not have responsibilities beyond looking at what might be called paramilitary and security issues. The decision made by the Governments in the spring was that that opportunity should be given to the commission.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that Assembly Members can go to the implementation group and argue that a breach of the Belfast agreement has taken place. The Assembly has to deliberate on those matters and make its own decisions. The hon. Gentleman and I would probably disagree as to whether in principle the issue of political breaches as opposed to paramilitary activity should or should not be dealt with by the commission. However, that is what was agreed would happen.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: How does it assist the credibility of the implementation group in the Assembly if a Member has a choice and can decide whether he wishes to make the complaint to the implementation group or the independent commission? Surely it undermines the position of the implementation group if there is another route that Members can take. I cannot understand the need for matters other than the commitment to democratic and peaceful means to be addressed by an independent commission, as the Assembly itself already has a means of addressing those issues.

Paul Murphy: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the principle of whether political breaches should be dealt with is a proper one. However, he and I probably disagree about that.
	To return to points made earlier by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, I deliberately did not conclude my remarks on his question, because I wanted to check the position. The House will understand that the procedural aspects of the work of the commission are a matter on which we have not gone into great detail because we are only setting the legislative framework. It is probably reasonable to say that where British members of the IMC have reported on a strand 1 matter, I would not expect formally to consult the Irish Government.

Nigel Dodds: I am interested to hear what the Secretary of State said on that particular point, because it directly contradicts what was said in the other place by the Government spokesman. Will he reflect on what he said, and clarify the position further? We are told in one House that the Dublin Government will be consulted, but now we are told that they will not be consulted, although the Secretary of State used the word formally, whatever that means. Perhaps he would clarify what formally means. Does it mean secretly, or does it mean that civil servants will not be present? The fact is that the Secretary of State referred earlier to Dublin being excluded from strand 1its representatives were not in the room, so why are they being brought into the room on this issue?

Paul Murphy: I think that there is a distinction to be drawn about a formal consultation, which will be required, as it were, with regard to the paramilitary activities, and where the four members of the commission are involved. An undertaking was given at Hillsborough in the joint declaration that there would be formal consultation with the Irish Government on that issue. I think the hon. Gentleman would accept that in the real world, if some major crisis was affecting the stability of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is inconceivable that in the course of a conversation about general matters, I would keep my mouth shut and say nothing. If the whole institutional stability of Northern Ireland was in jeopardy, would I not speak? He knows that that is nonsense and it would not happen. However, the formal positionwhere there is to be a formal consultation because of paramilitary mattersis now clear, and we will go through it.
	It was also an important part of the Hillsborough scheme that there should be an increased range of measures available against individuals and parties in the Assembly who were in breach of their obligations. The Bill amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998 accordingly. The Assembly will be able to exclude individuals and parties from office in Northern Ireland for a range of periods, rather than for the 12 months that was the only option under the 1998 Act. The Assembly will also be able to withhold pay and party allowances, and pass motions of censure. In taking such steps, the Assembly would, as with exclusion motions now, need to make its decisions with cross-community support. That is in line with the agreement. These are decisions that may be absolutely fundamental to the future of the devolved system.

Ian Paisley: What percentage of the Assembly would need to support a motion to meet the requirement for cross-community support? As the Secretary of State knows, a percentage was specified previously.

Paul Murphy: That is set out in the Bill, and I shall return to it.
	Those powers are available to the Assembly at any time. However, as we have seen in the past, the Assembly may be deadlocked at a time when the resolution of an issue demands some action, failing which the institutions could become inoperable. The Hillsborough agreement addressed that. It made it clear that there would be a range of discussions in the light of any finding by the IMC that a party or Assembly Member was in breach, and any recommendation by it of consequential measures.
	Those discussions would involve the implementation group, of which the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland are members. If the group recommended that a motion should be put before the Assembly for the taking of such measures, the Secretary of State would exercise his powers requiring the motion to be moved, but where the motion had failed to achieve cross-community support in the Assembly, or the implementation group had failed to agree any course of action, it would be for the British Governmentto turn now to the paramilitary aspectsin consultation with the Irish Government and the parties, to resolve the matter consistently with the commission's report.
	The Bill accordingly provides powers for the Secretary of State himself to take the measures required. Though the Bill does not set out all the procedures in the Hillsborough text, I confirm now that we would envisage following them in the light of a relevant commission report. We should, in particular, consult the implementation group, and the Irish Government, as the text specifies.
	These are powers of last resort. It is right that intensive efforts should be made by people in Northern Ireland to resolve these issues. They should not end up, before that, on the desk of a British Minister. That is not the Hillsborough plan, and it is far from the 1998 agreement. I should also say one other thing of the spirit in which we should operate these arrangements: we believe it is very importantdifficult and painful though it may be in the circumstancesto give effect to the commission's recommendations. We certainly intend to use these powers where the commission had so recommended, but action had not been taken.
	I shall not dwell at length on the details of the Bill. As I said earlier, it is important that hon. Members have an opportunity to deal with it in Committee. I hope that the explanatory notes will have been of use to them. Clauses 1 to 3 make provision for the commission, supplementing the agreement establishing it. Clause 1 provides for it to have immunity from suit, which is essential for the safeguarding of information that it has received in confidence. Clause 2 places on it a duty in carrying out its functions to do nothing to prejudice national security, put lives at risk or prejudice legal proceedings. Clause 3 requires me to lay a copy of its reports before Parliament.

Harry Barnes: Clause 3 provides for the reports to be laid before Parliament. The agreement between the two Governments suggests that those may include a wide range of matters relating to paramilitary activity and the people leading it. However, clause 2, dealing with the commission's duty to avoid prejudicial effect, states that a report should not put anyone's life in danger or prejudice future legal proceedings. Might not the situation arise where, although the commission knows the identity of people against whom action needs to be taken, it cannot report that to Parliament because it would be prejudicial under clause 2?

Paul Murphy: I repeat that the commission must work out how it deals with its own mechanisms, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would understand that its reports could not include details that would put lives at risk, and it is clearly not a court of law. Its purpose is to monitor and then tell the House of Commons and the people of Northern Ireland whether, in its view, having examined the evidence, there have been breaches of the agreement and paramilitary activity has been taking place.
	My hon. Friend knows, too, that some of the commission's examinations would inevitably deal with highly sensitive intelligence which, if revealed, could compromise people's safety. Members of the commission would be conscious of that, which is why it is so important that we have confidence in them and in their ability to give the House an honest report that reflects its findings but contains essential safeguards to protect the safety of the people concerned.

David Burnside: The people of Northern Ireland are confused about the recommendations that we are discussing. Could the Secretary of State give an example, without commenting on the legalities of it? If a murder by the IRA occurred, such as the murder of Gareth O'Connor, about which the police will have advised the right hon. Gentleman, and if he is also advised by his police advisers that Martin McGuinness still sits on the army council of the IRA, would that be an offence that could lead to Martin McGuinness's exclusion from the Executive? How long does he think the commission would take before it excluded Martin McGuinness from the Executive?

Paul Murphy: It would not be proper for me to comment on individuals in a debate such as this. In general terms, the commission would have to make up its own mind collectively about how best to report what it had discovered. It would make recommendations to me first, and the Assembly would then consider them and take decisions. If it did not, I would.
	Clauses 4 to 8 are concerned with amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in respect of measures against individual Ministers or parties. Clause 4 provides for the new range of periods of exclusion and obliges me, in requiring the Assembly to consider exclusion, to take account of reports from the commission.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Secretary of State will see that I have tabled an amendment to clause 4. If the Assembly is not dealing on its own initiative with a motion to exclude, but he is persuaded that there should be an exclusion, why should the vehicle of the presiding officer be used? In what must be extraordinary circumstances anyway, would it not be more appropriate for him to present his case directly to the Assembly?

Paul Murphy: The provision follows the 1998 Act and the Good Friday agreement, in which it was decided that such mechanisms were the best way of proceeding. As my hon. Friend knows, there has to be cross-community support, but we shall return to the matter in a little more detail in Committee.
	Clause 6 permits the Assembly to reduce the remuneration of a Minister or members of a political party and confers on me a reserve power in the same sense. Clause 7 makes similar provision in respect of financial assistance. Clause 8 permits the Assembly to pass censure motions.

Lembit �pik: I have a question about clause 7, although Ministers may wish to return to it in Committee, as it concerns a point of detail. Around line 19 on page 9 of the Bill, it seems that, while salaries can be reduced, there will be no negative effect on pensions, which implies that if the Assembly were suspended for 40 years, a Member would still retire on a full pension. What is the logic for not penalising the pensions outcome as well?

Paul Murphy: I would be 96 after a 40-year suspension of the Assembly, and I would have to consider the effect on my pension in such circumstances. We will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that issue; he is right to highlight the current position.
	Clause 9 provides for parliamentary procedures in respect of my powers.

Nigel Dodds: On clause 8, the Secretary of State mentioned censure motions. What is the thinking behind that clause? At the moment, it is possible for a Member or party to table a motion in the Assembly expressing no confidence, censuring a Minister and so on. Clause 8 makes that harder and restricts Assembly Members' freedom. Such provision did not feature in the Belfast agreement or even the Hillsborough talks, and it is not in the joint declaration, as I understand it. Where did it come from? Why does it restrict the right of Members to call for a vote of no confidence or table a censure motion in respect of any other party or Minister? Can he explain that clause?

Paul Murphy: I was not aware that the measure made it more difficult to table censure motions, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, we will deal with that point in winding up the debate, as it is a technical one. More generally, the reason why the provision is included, as opposed to how it affects the current circumstances, is that there will be a gradation of punishments starting at a motion of censurea reprimand by the Assembly as a body corporateincreasing in severity in terms of the various measures outlined in the Bill and ending up with exclusion.
	There is provision for those powers to be exercised in advance of approval, as is right given that urgent action may be required, perhaps when one or both Houses of Parliament are in recess. There is provision for the consequences if such an exercise of powers is not upheld.
	We now need to move forward with great urgency in the Northern Ireland political process. We all want to see elections; confidence restored on all sides to the point at which politics can again operate; and decisions that are properly made in Belfast again being made there, in Northern Ireland.
	The independent monitoring commission will be part of the foundations of rebuilt trust and confidence in Northern Ireland. No one who is committed to wholly democratic politics should object to the new independent scrutiny of paramilitary activity that this new body will provide. No one can claim that the men involved will not bring objective expertise and experience to the task, and no one can convince me that the commission will not help to restore the trust and confidence that are required to allow elections to a working Assembly and a stable and peaceful future for Northern Ireland.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Quentin Davies: Nobody could possibly object to the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken for three quarters of an hour on a Bill of such importance. He was generousand rightly soin taking interventions and giving detailed explanations, at least most of the time. However, that illustrates the anomaly whereby nine hours have been allowed not for Second Reading alone, but for all stages of the Bill's consideration, including the time taken in considering the allocation of time motion, which should never have been tabled. In conducting the debate as he has, he has demonstrated that Second Reading should have lasted the whole day. We should have had a proper Second Reading taking the whole afternoon, after which we would have had time for reflection, discussion and even negotiation. The other stages could then have taken their turn.
	The history of Northern Ireland over the past five or six years is one of great hopes followed by severe disappointments. The Belfast agreement was not in any sense an ideal documentit contained many features that were unpalatable to many people, including mebut it was a great achievement, and I have always given the Government due credit for it. Nevertheless, it was not followed, as it should have been, by full decommissioning, by the disbandment of private armies, by the end of intimidation, harassment and paramilitary murders and by the successful and permanent embedding of devolved governmentin short, by normalisation. Five and a half years on, we still await substantial progress in decommissioning. The exiles remain exiled, and the intimidated remain intimidated. Only yesterday, as the Secretary of State knows, there was another resignation from a district police partnership because of intimidation.
	The Government suspended the devolved institutions nearly a year ago. There have been two successive postponements of Assembly elections since then, and in the second instance no date was given for them to take place. Since the second, indefinite postponementexactly as I predictedthere has been no progress on negotiations for the completion of the peace process. Insteadhere I use the words that I used in Mayrather than parties being compelled to examine the scope for agreement with each other, they have turned in on themselves.
	Thank heaven it has remained relatively quiet on the streets this summer. I pay tribute to all on both sides who have used their influence in favour of forbearance, patience and moderation. It would, however, be utterly irresponsible to suppose that because things have been calmer over the summer, they can be counted on to remain calm irrespective of progress on the peace process or opportunities for peaceful, democratic expression at the ballot box.
	Who bears the blame for the disappointment of the great hopes of five years ago? Of course it is predominantly Sinn Fein-IRA. Whether through deliberately planned duplicity or otherwise, they have talked peace while continuing to plan and prepare for warprocuring arms, training, targeting, spying, intimidating. We all know the names of those responsible for these egregious breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement: Florida, Colombia, Castlereagh, Stormontgate. No words are too strong to condemn their behaviour. If the peace process collapsesand it couldthey will bear, in the eyes of generations to come, the great historic guilt for destroying a precious opportunity for all the people of Northern Ireland.
	But no peace process that was not properly and effectively chaired and managed was going to work. That role could fall only to the British Government. What was required was the application of some classic principles of good negotiation and good chairmanship: clarity, consistency, decisiveness, balance, fairness, rewards for compliance, and penalties or sanctions for bad behaviour. Have we had any of those? The Government have proved themselves quite incapableconsistentlyof supplying them. There has been muddle, and there have been U-turns. Just look at the elections. They have been promised, postponed, promised, postponed again and now, apparently, promised again.
	We have had false assurances, such as those given by the Prime Minister at the time of the campaign for a referendum on the agreement in 1998. We have had indecisiveness, we have had unilateral concessions, and we have had complete abdicationcomplete inactionin the face of the most serious breaches, including the four that I mentioned.
	I have often said, in this place and outside, that the Government have committed four cardinal errors. Time has moved on, and I am sorry to say that that number is now five. The first errorI have of course said this before and I am afraid that I will continue to say it, because no one should ever forget itwas the catastrophic decision to release all the prisoners without any decommissioning at all, giving away the most valuable card for precisely nothing. It is not surprising that no IRA decommissioning whatever took place for three and a half years after the agreement, until the Americans themselves took a hand and became directly involved, after 11 September. But the Government could hardly have predicted that tragedy and its consequences for, among other things, the peace process in Northern Ireland.
	The second cardinal error was the making of unilateral concessions that went quite beyond the Belfast agreement, and which were not required by it at all. They included the special status for Sinn Fein-IRA MPs and the amnesty for on-the-run terrorists, which, at Weston Park, the Government promised would be delivered by the end of 2001. The Secretary of State has been good enough to acknowledge publicly that it was, in retrospect, a thoroughly good thing that the Conservative Opposition were able successfully to oppose implementation of that concession, and that in consequence that valuable card now remains in the Government's hands, so I shall say no more about that.
	The third cardinal error was the complete failure to respond with any sanction at all to serious breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement by Sinn Fein-IRA. I said after Florida and Colombia that if there were no sanctionsno downside to such behaviourmore breaches would inevitably occur. The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy)it is a pleasure to address her in that fashionhas listened to me these past two years, and has heard me say that many times before. I am afraid that it remains as true as when I first said it.
	After what happened at Castlereagh, the Opposition themselves proposed a remedya point that takes us directly to the Bill's substance. On 16 July 2002, I suggested that we empower the Secretary of State to exclude from the Executive parties that were in breach of their obligations under the agreement, or that were acting in concert with persons in breach. I also predictedthis point was raised earlierthat, in the event of a serious breach and a requirement to exclude, it would be ineffective to rely on the Assembly's voting for an exclusion motion. I said:
	I think that the Secretary of State may be missing the point
	that was being polite
	which is purely practicalthat one has no credibility in this life in threatening a sanction that one is not in a position to enforce. The right hon. Gentleman will get no leverage in the negotiations with Sinn Fein by suggesting that one day there might be a majority of Sinn Fein and Social Democratic and Labour Members who might like to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. If he wants to use that mechanism, he will have to take powers in this House.[Official Report, 16 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 233.]
	It has taken the Government 15 months to come to this House to try to take those powers. It has taken them 15 months to realise that it was not sufficient to rely on the Assembly to vote through an exclusion motion, and that we need to provide a procedure for dealing with the situation in which the Assembly cannot agreethrough securing agreement in both of the two camps, according to the principle on which that Assembly worksto vote through such a motion. But I am delighted that after 15 months, the penny has dropped.

Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on what he means by the two camps?

Quentin Davies: I hardly need to describe to the hon. Gentleman how the procedures work in the Belfast Assembly. He knows perfectly well that, to get an exclusion motion through, it would be necessary to have a majority in both the Unionist and the nationalist and republican camps. That is a factI do not want to quarrel about it nowand he knows it even better than I do.

Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even at this stage, the Government seem not to have woken up, in that, instead of the Bill stating that the Secretary of State shall, it states that he may? In other words, the Bill leaves one means of leverage out.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall come to that when I deal with the Bill in more detail.

Seamus Mallon: rose

Quentin Davies: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive me.
	The Secretary of State's predecessor never produced any arguments against following up the Opposition's suggestion at the time to introduce a Bill containing exclusion powers. I do not know why he did not; he never explained. Perhaps he could not make up his mind, or suffered from a bad case of not invented here syndrome. The Government often seem to suffer from that. Perhaps he could not persuade Mr. Jonathan Powell.
	Whatever the explanation, it was a grave error that had serious consequences within only a few months when, as I warned was likely in the circumstances, the next breach came. Of course it came in the shape of Stormontgate. When that happened, the Government found that they did not have the necessary weapon in their armoury, which I had tried to place there. No effective sanction was available to them, which is precisely why they ended up having to resort to dismissing the whole institutional structure of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. They brought the whole edifice down, unjustly and perversely punishing the innocent with the guilty, and plunging Northern Ireland into the constitutional crisis and political impasse in which it remains embedded. All that could have been avoided.
	As we now see from the Bill, the new Secretary of State has seen the point of exclusion. Although we have several difficulties with the way in which he proposes that it should operate, it would be churlish and ungenerous not to pay due tribute to him, which I certainly do.
	The Government's fourth cardinal error was not to appreciate that every issue in Northern Irelandits institutions and their working, decommissioning, policing, demilitarisation and so forthis inevitably interlinked. Some parties are more committed to some aspects and other parties to others, so any solution and any negotiation must be comprehensive, by any definition. It is therefore always an error to believe that some issues can be resolved in vacuo or that side deals can be done with one party without unwinding the commitment of others. We have seen far too many unilateral concessions, one-sided assurances and side deals done with one party, offending another, which then has to be appeased with another concession that in turn upsets another party.
	That was a hopeless way of conducting a negotiation, but every time that I mentioned the word linkagethe Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree will remember me doing so on many occasionsto the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, he bridled at it and rejected it.

Lembit �pik: The Conservatives called for unilateral exclusion and demanded that Ministers implement it last year, so I am at a loss to understand why they repeatedly criticise the Government for acting unilaterally when they requested such action last year.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood what I have said. I am criticising any sort of unilateral concession, which I said was completely wrong. Equally, I have said that it was necessary to have a balance, not unilateral action. I said that part of the balanceI hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening, but if he was not, I shall repeat it for himrequires some sanctions for bad behaviour. The Government found themselves in a hopeless position last year when no response was available to them. I suggested a response, but they did not take it. That is why they ended up dismantling the whole institutional structure in Belfast and are now finding it difficult to put it back on its feet again. That, in a couple of sentences, shows the tragic outcome of a series of avoidable mistakes.

Lembit �pik: rose

Quentin Davies: I will not give way again, because we are under a time constraint. It is not my fault, but we suffer from a time constraint imposed on us arbitrarily by an arrogant Government.
	To be fair, after the present Secretary of State took office, we had a different approach, which resulted in multilateral and comprehensive negotiations at Hillsborough. As the House knows, we strongly supported those negotiations and they led to some genuinely encouraging progress. Sadly, that progress has not been sustained. The best hope that we have is that it has been deep frozen and can, in due time, be revived and built on.
	The Government committed the fifth cardinal error when they postponed the Assembly elections indefinitely. The difference between an indefinite postponement and a cancellation is a nice philosophical question, but an important pragmatic question that the Government should ask themselves today is how long does an indefinite postponement need to continue before it has the political consequences of a cancellation?
	That postponement was an error is now clearfor two reasons. First, it penalised the innocent, and the democratic process itself, for the failings of one party. It thus breached both an elementary principle of justice and the pragmatic requirement in any process that the structure of incentives should be rational and not perverse. Secondly, it was an error because it made it predictably certain that no progress would be made in the peace process. Before an election, parties and political leaders in Northern Ireland will always seek to strengthen their position in their own sectarian camps. That means talking tough and pointing to rivals' weaknesses. No one can make concessions in such circumstances, nor accept concessions from the other side as adequate. It follows that no concessions will be made. It follows that no negotiations will proceed. The history of the past few months may prove more eloquent than any analysis of mine, and I hope that the Government will draw the right conclusion from that before even greater risks are run.
	The Bill enshrines two principlesthe principle of exclusion and the principle of a monitoring commission. We clearly do not object to exclusion, because we first introduced the concept into the Northern Ireland political debate and we feel as strongly about it as we did when we advocated it 15 months ago. We will not play dog in the manger. Simply because we had to wait for 15 months for the Government to come around to our point of view is no reason to fail to support the principle of exclusion. We will hold firm to that principle.
	We equally approve of the concept of a monitoring commission. We cannot claim authorship of that, because the credit goes to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who tried to urge it on the Secretary of State's predecessor, with no more success than I had with exclusion. However, the concept was generally accepted at Hillsborough and we greatly welcome it. I recall suggesting to the Secretary of State that to give effect to the monitoring commission, we might simply expand the remit of General de Chastelain. I saw advantages in asking a military man to supervise the essentially military task of unwinding the paramilitary operations of terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. However, that is in the past and I am happy to endorse the Government's approach to the constitution of the monitoring commission.
	We have considerable problems with the Government's original proposal to link the concept of exclusion and the monitoring commission. The Government's original idea was that the Secretary of State would have no power to exclude, except on the recommendation of the commission. To us, that clearly raised a matter of fundamental principle, and I am surprised that it was not equally clear to the Government. We all believe in democracy, and its first principle is that government is conducted by those who are elected or those who are accountable to those who are electedin the case of our parliamentary system, to Parliament. The original, pristine Bill proposed that four people, who would not be democratically accountable to Parliament or in any other way, should determine who should and who should not serve in the Government of Northern Ireland and exercise executive functions, not the Secretary of State, who is democratically accountable. That is a fundamentally obnoxious procedure, and one that we could not accept.
	I am glad that the Government havewiselyaccepted the Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in another place. My own party made a significant contribution to that amendment, which was also supported by the Ulster Unionists. It gives the Secretary of State a power of exclusion for a period of two weeks, irrespective of the monitoring commission's recommendations. That is a substantial improvement, and it affects the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. However, a point of principle is still involved for exclusions that continue for more than two weeks. I hope later to be able to advocate an amendment that would protect the principle entirely, and another that would require the Secretary of State to take account of the commission's recommendations when making a decision to exclude. We believe that the role of the commission in this matter should be advisory. It is totally inappropriate that it should have a decisive role in determining who should sit in an Executive.
	The Bill enshrines two important innovations. For the reasons that I have given, we strongly support them. The Government have accepted an amendment that attenuates considerably our remaining concerns, although it does not remove them entirely. We shall therefore support the Bill on Second Reading. We hope to improve it further in Committee. Above all, we hope that it will contributeas I believe that it willto progress in the peace process.

Seamus Mallon: I shall begin with a brief account of the context and background of this debate. There is more to this than the nihilistic apologia that we have just heard in respect of who was right and who was wrong. The reality is that anyone dealing with politics in these circumstances is caught between armies, in the quagmire of violence. In that context, rights and wrongs have neither the neatness nor the absolute values suggested by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).
	I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, and in some respects he is technically correct, but we are trying to end 30 years of violence and to bridge almost 100 years of political, religious and sectarian divisions, and in the search for absolute wisdom, we must remember that our own sense of rectitudeof being right or wrongis not as absolute as we might wish.
	The collective effect of matters such as the Castlereagh break-in, the IRA's spying operation and its activity in Colombia broke the back of a political process that was already struggling. It was readily accepted that the Ulster Unionist party could not have stayed in the power-sharing Executive in those circumstances. There is a general realisation that no political party or organisation could live with another party that undertook such activities while involved in government.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Seamus Mallon: I have anticipated the hon. Gentleman's question, and I have my answer waiting for him.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: If, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described, and following the Stormontgate revelations, a motion had been tabled in the Assembly to exclude the Sinn Fein members from the Executive, would his party have supported it?

Seamus Mallon: I was not in the leadership of our party at that stage, but I am not evading the question because the answer is in the Bill and in what the Secretary of State said. There already exists a built-in barrierprohibition would be the wrong wordagainst that happening, just as there was in the negotiations before the Good Friday agreement. The Ulster Unionist party was then able to resist action against those who would not play a full role in the Executive, and that was so for reasons that we recognised as good ones. I myself tried and failed to find a way to deal with that problem. It was spurned by the Ulster Unionist party, which ignored it for a year. It was spurned by the IRA. Neither made any attempt to see whether that was workable. I failed on both counts, therefore, but I would rather have failed than not tried. That is the approach that I want to bring to this Bill, too.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is this a yes or a no?

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman will have time to nibble away as we go along andhe need not worryI will nibble back.
	I am no great advocate of commissions. I have a concept of the sturdy, independent Ulsterman, standing on his own two feet, going about his own business, looking after himself and not having to resort to commissions. I am on record as praising the commissioners: I know two of them well and hugely respect them, and I have no doubt that I would have similar respect for the other two. However, I would much prefer it if the matter could be dealt with through the political process in the north of Ireland by those who should and couldI hope willslot into the vision of the sturdy, independent Ulsterman, standing on his own feet and doing things for himself.
	We are not short of commissions. Now we are to have the monitoring commission. We have the international commission on decommissioning, a commission for the disappearedthat is, those who were murdered in various waysand a human rights commission, the least said about which the better at this stage. However, if the political process were strong, vibrant and self-confident enough, we would not need to appoint people to commissions. We could deal with things ourselves.
	I have nothing fundamentally against the new commission. It may throw some light on Castlereagh. It may be able to look into the way in which some sectarian attacks take place. It may be able to establish the role of paramilitary groups in riot situations. It may even look at the Government's credibility when they become tardy in relation to some of their commitments. I am not against the international commission in those terms, but I feel that we will soon have almost more commissions than we have issues to deal with.
	I am not against sanctions, and I want to put that point on the record, although I do not doubt that it will be misunderstood. Along with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I saw how difficult it was to sit through a situation in which the basic rules of politics were flouted daily before our eyes. The standards of non-violence and the highest standards of the duty of office that the Good Friday agreement demanded were tossed to the wind, and we were not capable of doing anything about it.
	However, when I say that I am in favour of sanctions I mean the sanctions in the Good Friday agreement, whichexcept for some peoplewe have all broadly agreed: sanctions that are workable and sanctions that protect and defend the political process and will not eventually tear it apart. That is one of the difficulties with this Bill and with the draft agreement on which it is based. We must be careful that, while we seek the optimum protection for the political process, we do not create the means by which it could be torn apart again.
	I am not in favour of contrivances. If we are all honest, we will accept that in many ways this legislation is a contrivanceI do not mean that disparagingly. It is a contrivance for various reasons. It is intended to bridge the gap that I identifiedthe political inability to make the Assembly take decisions. Also in many ways, it has more of a paper value than the real substantive value that it might well have had.
	Indeed, the legislation is a contrivance in the sense that although it is derived from the Hillsborough joint declaration, it was not part of it; it was an addendum. It did not come out of the joint declaration as agreed by the political parties; it was stuck on to it and issued separately, almost as a counterweight to whatever had been agreed about what might be done governmentally about the issue of on-the-runs. In many ways, that adds to the contrivances. The balancing act that resulted from the two addendums has not increased the standing of the approach.
	I am not against sanctions, but this contrivance is politicalI can see why it was a political requirement for some, but a political contrivance to get people in may not be the right method of ensuring that everyone stays in or that there is anything in which to stay. I hope that I am wrong.
	I can say with some confidence that the mechanisms within this legislation will in any case never be used. I am firmly of the opinion that the day on which the Secretary of Statewhoever he or she may bedecides to exclude without cross-community support within the Assembly will be the day on which the question of pensions to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) referred becomes very relevant indeed. That is when the political process in the north of Ireland will have decided that it cannot sustain itself and cannot stand on its own two feet. That is when the test that is in this legislation will be used. [Interruption.] I will not lose that confidence because of heckling from the cheaper seats. I shall not lose that confidence in spite of those the Americans would call bleachers; we might say they were the people up in the stands[Interruption.] I did not mean that offensively.
	I am confident because there are many good people in the north of Ireland who want the agreement to work. They want devolution to work. They want north-south development, through the Assembly, to work. They want to experience the sense of pride that Northern Ireland people can fairly and effectively administer their affairs. I am not confusing good people with people who think as I do or who believe what I believe; there are many good people right across the board who genuinely believe that the principle of consent is the cement that will bind the people of the whole of Ireland, north and south, into a people at peace with themselves and with others.
	Even as we approach what I hope will be a new electoral situation and a renewed establishment of the political process, I have no doubt that the trust and confidence required are being, and will be, put to the test. There are images in my mind that show how difficult it will be for good and brave people inside and outside politics in Northern Ireland. Those good people in Unionism and in nationalism will have to look at some of the things that are happening around them and face those things down.
	The question put by the Good Friday agreement is whether those involved in violence can be regarded as genuine political partners in the creation of lasting peace and a wholly new political dispensation. Sometimes, it is hard to believe that that can be so. Among the images that I recall, just from the past few weeks, is that of the body of Jean McConville, found at Shelling Hill beacha place I know well. I remember, too, the awesome comment of one of her relations that she was identified because the cardigan found in her sandy grave was her only cardigan. That is some comment on those who murdered Jean McConville, those who gave the instruction to murder her and those who belong to the organisation that killed that lady. Why? Because she was a person of compassion and humanity and gave comfort and help to a dying soldier on the streets of the city in which she lived. That image does not do much for confidence.
	I recall a photograph of four Sinn Fein TDs, pictured in Castlerea prison with the murderers of Jerry McCabe, the garda killed outside Limerick. Four Members of Parliament went to that prison to be photographed with the men who murdered one of the Garda Siochana and published the picture in An Phoblacht to be gloated over. That is how they feel. Multiply one Jerry McCabe by every policeman killed in the north of Ireland and you see the extent to which those two images alone put the fingers in the eyes of good people in the Unionist community and good people in the nationalist community who want a different and new way of life.

Nigel Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Seamus Mallon: I will give way in just one second.
	There will be such an occasion in Letterkenny, when a reunion of those who escaped from Crumlin Road prison will take place. There will be dancing and singing, photographs and gloating, and others will be reminded of their tragedies. I ask this question, simply because it has to be asked: is that the way to create trust and confidence in the Unionist community about a new electoral situation and a new administration? Is that the way to create confidence in the nationalist community that, in effect, a new way of life is coming from the political process?
	Add to that the fact that Father Dan White received death threats because he had the audacity to carry out a religious service in a graveyard in Greyabbey. Add to that the desecration of headstones at the small parish church at Ballyargan in my own parish at the weekend. And add to that the threats to brave people who sit on the policing partnership boards from, in the words of the Chief Constable, the Provisional IRA. All that is sticking fingers in people's eyes. I believe that those things have got to be looked at. I will give way now, but I want to expand further on that if I may.

Nigel Dodds: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right to draw attention in such a forceful way to the issues that he highlights. On the issue of the Sinn Fein TDs photographed with those responsible for the murder of Garda McCabe, does the hon. Gentleman understand the outrage felt by the families of RUC officers murdered in Northern Ireland who have seen the murderers of their loved ones released and set free, yet people in the Irish Republicpoliticians, newspapers and otherssay what an outrage it is even for Sinn Fein TDs to be photographed with the perpetrators of such violence? The hon. Gentleman and other Members voted for the release of prisoners

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some latitude to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that other hon. Members will bear in mind just what we are discussing today.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), who asks a valid question. Do I understand? Yes, I think I understand, but this is not just about understanding; it is about feeling. In my view, this is something that transcends understanding, and perhaps that will take us further than a lot of the analysis that we impose on things.
	I have mentioned certain visual images. I hope that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not mind that I refer to this, but his churches have been attackeddesecratedin Counties Monaghan and Cork. I include that with the other images as a means of saying to all of us and to myself that, while we recognise that the creation of peace and the creation of new political institutions have created a moral quagmire for all of us, it is the responsibility of politics to proceed, not to be bogged down in that moral quagmire. In my view, the business of politics will survive.
	Politics is about compromise. It is about arbitration. It is about giving a little and getting a little. It is about understanding the other person's position. It is about leaving the other person with enough to ensure that self-respect is not taken away. It is about all those things. It is not about always winning.
	I recently noticed a newspaper article by Professor John Murphy. I forget whom he attributed the quote to, but it was this:
	God cannot change what happened in the pasthistorians, revisionists and spin doctors can.
	And they are doing it now. The awfulness of what we are talking about, and the awfulness of the moral quagmire that the good people in the political parties and in the community must wade through rather than get bogged down, is that those who carried out the murders of Jean McConville and young Columba McVeighthey are digging for his body not far from where I live noware lionised and heroised. Their dealings and activities are airbrushed in such a way that, in effect, they become folk heroes within their own country. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said previously that history will blame. Unfortunately, the most recent part of history does not. It lionises those who use violence. It makes them the pin-up boys of the political process and it gives to them an aura that they simply do not deserve. That is another problem that the good people in the political process will have to see down and see out, and live with it in such a way that we can bury it eventually by creating the type of society that we want.

David Winnick: Should not my hon. Friend's words be heard particularly by one or two who can find kind words for the IRA[Interruption.] I repeat: should not his words be heard by those who have said one or two kinds words about the IRA?

Seamus Mallon: If I were to answer my hon. Friend's question, I would be here a long time. I would apply those words especially, however, in generic terms, to the media in Ireland and in Britain. Could I apply them also to those commentators in Ireland and in Britain who see something exciting about the whiff of cordite and who are prepared to airbrush the awfulness out of their considerations? May I refer them with the greatest of respect to two sovereign Governments and simply say that the more that those who carry out acts of violence become the beneficiariesin many ways, the gratuitous beneficiariesof political negotiations, the more the good people in the political process in Ireland, be they Unionist or nationalist, are sacrificed? I therefore thank my hon. Friend for his question. Those are harsh and difficult words to say, but if we are to get beyond this moral quagmire into real development as a people and in terms of a political process, we must say them.
	I want to make one or two observations about the legislation. As I said earlierI could not believe the hornet's nest that I was raisingwe are dealing not just with this Bill, but with the draft international agreement, which has established the functions. I will not go through that again. I simply raise the issue because of the distinction, which I believe was confirmed by the Government spokesman in the House of LordsI am convinced of this, and it is the advice that I have receivedthat the international commission receives its functions from the agreement between the two Governments, not from the legislative process in which we are engaged here. Consequently, any changes in or to the functions cannot be dealt with in Committee. If I am wrong, I have got it terribly wrong and the Government spokesman misled the House of Lords. I have far too much respect for him as a person and for his intellect to believe that that would be the case.

Lembit �pik: rose

Jane Kennedy: rose

Seamus Mallon: I give way to the Minister. Ladies first.

Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it would help me to understand the point to which he and others have already drawn attention if he could give me the column reference from the Lords Hansard. I would then be able to read it and perhaps respond.

Seamus Mallon: So that there is no lack of clarity, I make it clear that the remarks appeared at column 667 of the Lords Official Report on Monday 15 September.

Lembit �pik: Surely in any practical sense it is reasonable for us to assume that the will of this House can be seen to prevail. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) certainly made the point that this is the sovereign court of the laws of the United Kingdom. For all practical purposes, we can proceed on the assumption that if the House votes in a certain way, it can be taken as the outcome of our deliberations and that will stand in the eyes of our national and international colleagues.

Seamus Mallon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the conclusion will have no legal effect. [Interruption.] I hear someone suggesting that that is ridiculous, and perhaps it is. However, that is the reality. I am not a lawyer, but there are many eminent lawyers on these Benches. There are those who properly advise Lord Williams. I do not make my point in a legalistic sense because there is a reason for my wanting to make a change in relation to the functions.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has just said that a decision of Parliament has no legal effect. Of course, that is absurd. Only decisions of Parliament can have legal effect in this country. It may well be that the opposite of what he has said is the case, namely that if Parliament takes certain decisions that have a legal effect, that may invalidate other documents. That is a very different matter.

Seamus Mallon: I take that point, so perhaps I should at this stage explain the reasons for my belief. In response to an amendment tabled by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
	Therefore, however much one sympathises with the thinking behind it, the amendment would have no legal effect.
	Later in the same column, he repeats that point. He said:
	So if the amendment were carried it would have no legal effect.[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 667.]
	That may or may not be the case, but I happen to believe that it is.

Alistair Carmichael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his analysis of the words spoken by Lord Williams of Mostyn. However, I also think that Lord Williams is absolutely wrong. This is probably the most significant point that we will deal with today in relation to a Bill that may or may not ultimately have short to medium-term importance. Lord Williams was speaking about the exercise of a function by the Executive, but the Executive only have the powers that this place gives them. If this place declines to ratify an act by the Executive, that act is surely null and void. To that extent, when the hon. Gentleman says that something that the other place does by way of amendment would have no legal effect, he is wrong.

Seamus Mallon: I am not saying that. I was simply doing what any Member of Parliament would do by reading what a Government spokesman said. What he said was either right or wrongI shall leave it to hon. and learned Members to sort that out.
	The issue is important to me because when I read the draft agreement, I noticed one great omission. That has caused my difficulty because I would not have gone down this road at all were it not for that. Article 4 of the draft agreement specifies the things that are to be monitored, which include attacks on security forces, murders, sectarian attacks, involvement in riots, other offences, training and targeting. They all appear in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, but there is one exception: organised crime.
	Given Northern Ireland's post-ceasefire experiences, why has organised crime been omitted? Living where I live and coming from where I do, I can tell hon. Members that organised crime is the greatest source of benefit for paramilitary groups because it gives them unlimited money to follow their paramilitary activities and objectives and the money is also channelled into their political objectives. It perverts the society in which racketeering exists to the extent that it does in the north of Ireland and changes and perverts the approach in society. It has a long-term effect and it will take decades before parts of the north of Ireland recover from it, if they ever do. I have to ask again why there is such an omission and why I cannot make an amendment. When the lawyers sort this out, we shall see.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he can seek the leave of the House to table a manuscript amendment? He would have support on this side of the House if he tabled such an amendment, given that he has not already done so.

Seamus Mallon: The right hon. Member for Upper Bann smiled whimsically at me when he heard the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) saying that I might get support. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes recognises what that is worth.
	I shall leave it to the lawyers to sort out the situation but in addition to defrauding the Exchequer, creating a mafia culture in our society and perverting the democratic standards for decades to come, organised crime will fill political coffers north and south of the border in a way with which the Bill should deal.
	There is a serious second issue, although perhaps it is not as dramatic. Again, no attempt has been made to deal properly with the failure to fulfil properly functions in the Executive. The joint declaration at Hillsborough said that the body
	will also have a more general responsibility to consider claims by any party in the Assembly that another party is fundamentally in breach of requirements in the Declaration of Support or elsewhere in the Agreement.
	The words have been changed so that the draft agreement says:
	has failed to observe any other terms of the pledge of office.
	There is a substantive difference. The question of the difference between the pledge of office and the duty of office has still not been resolved. It could have been resolved under the terms of the wording of the joint declaration at Hillsborough, in my view. Again, it is questionable. It is a legal matter. It cannot be done in relation to this, in terms of the pledge of office, rather than the duty of office.
	I have already alluded to my third point and will not labour it. There is something weak inherently and something wrong fundamentally, when a political process has to go to a Secretary of State to sort out its problems and has to appoint commissioners from America, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Finlandname any country in the world and we have commissioners from itrather than sorting it out ourselves. I very much regret that the cross-community support element can be superseded by a decision of the Secretary of State. I think that I understand the reason for itI am sure I dobut it tells us something about ourselves.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that those who are supposedly or allegedly in breach of political obligations should be treated in the same way and possibly have the same sanctions applied against them, for taking a principled political position, as those who are alleged to have taken part in criminal or terrorist activity or who are associated with those who do? Is it right that the same sanctions should be applied in both cases?

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to quantify guilt. The reality is that it is not possible. If he is asking me whether it is as damaging, it is notthat is obviousbut is it in the best interests of the political process?
	I leave it to people to try to resolve at some time the distinction between the pledge of office and the duty of office, because until we do it will be a running sore.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is on record that, during the lifetime of the Executive, he sought to have excluded from the Executive my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and me because we would not sit down at the Executive table with Sinn Fein, yet at the same time the hon. Gentleman did not go after Sinn Fein and its association with the IRA. How could he try to have the Democratic Unionist party, as democrats, removed but not Sinn Fein?

Seamus Mallon: For obvious reasons, I did not table anything in relation to the hon. Gentleman's position. I did not table anything in relation to the Sinn Fein position. As I said earlier, I made an offer that failed on both counts but surely when there is a failure properly to fulfil the duties that are required, as in attending North/South Ministerial Council meetings, that is a breach of the duty of office, however one semantically argues about the pledge of office.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is on record that the agreement was to bring about an inclusive Government. I have heard him say it, I have heard him preach it. Why now is he so anxious to exclude people who are not engaged in violence, who are not leading people on to kill one another but simply want to have the basic democratic principles upheld, which are, as set out by the Prime Minister, that one is not expected to sit down with people in Government and pretend that one can do something, because one must have faith that everyone in that Government has said goodbye to violence and wants democracy to have the ascendancy?

Seamus Mallon: I do not want the exclusion of the hon. Gentleman's party or any party. I want the adherence of all parties to the title duties required in the political arrangement and the agreement, and the adherence of all parties to the crucial point of non-violence. I want a situation in which the hon. Gentleman's party and all political parties in the north of Ireland are inclusively involved in trying to create something that is new and that can give us a new way of life. I am confident that that can happen, and to maintain that confidence I have to believe that inclusivity means serving in an Executive, an assembly, committees and every walk of political life with people whom one may not particularly like, including those who in the past have carried out atrocities. That is what inclusivity means, and that is the moral quagmire that I spoke about earlier.
	We must consider which is the more powerful positionnot moving out of the moral quagmire because of one's perception of one's own rectitude or having the courage to move out of the moral swamp, and biting one's lip as one goes to do something that will put an end to the swamp. It is easy for all of us to become self-righteous and stay in the swamp because of our beliefs, principles and self-righteousness. However, people of courage get out of the swamp and do difficult things like trying to reach an accommodation, even with people whom they find revolting. That is the challenge that we face, and that is what this is all about.
	Finally, I shall return to the good people in the north of Ireland in all political parties who, I hope, will shortly have the opportunity in an election and subsequently to get out of that moral quagmire. If they do so, their contribution to this period of Irish history will be enormous.

Lembit �pik: I expressed reservations about the allocation of time motion in our first debate, but I am now concerned that if everyone who wishes to speak in this debate does so we will not complete Second Reading before 10.27 pm. However, we will see what happens.
	I should like to underline something that arose in our discussion of the motion that is relevant to Second Reading and has direct implications for the process that we are debating. My biggest reservation about completing all the Bill's stages in one day is the fact that it leaves no time for reflection between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report. Quite apart from the fact that the purpose of the Report stage has been virtually invalidated, it would have been better if the Government had allowed themselves room to manoeuvre on something that is evidently contentious. On balance, they could have saved time by allowing us to have the sort of dialogue that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said would be helpful.
	Notwithstanding my reservations, I should like to set out the Liberal Democrat view of the Bill, highlighting the things with which we agree and areas that, should we reach a discussion of amendments, we may be able to discuss in more detail.
	First, I must take issue with something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said. He described, as he often does, the five cardinal sins committed by the Government with regard to Northern Ireland policy. I humbly suggest that the one cardinal sin that he committed was to attempt to take credit for other people's ideas. He said that on 16 July last year he proposed the arrangements that we are discussing today. I am sure that he will remember that 12 days previous to that, around 4 July 2002, the sister party of the Liberal Democrats, the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, suggested something similar in the Hillsborough talks. I am sure the Alliance party of Northern Ireland would welcome the Conservatives' support for the idea, but it a bit cheeky for the Conservatives to suggest that they came up with it first, when the Alliance party has consistently suggested such ideas, perhaps not realising that it was being watched so closely from across the water.

David Burnside: On the subject of the Liberal Democrats' contribution to new ideas, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the more constructive ideas in recent years from their sister party, the Alliance party, was the contribution from Seamus Close, who suggested that if Sinn Fein cannot turn into a democratic party, we might have to move towards a weighted majority representing both the Unionist and the nationalist community? Perhaps that is the position to which we are now moving.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of cross-community support for legislation, which touches on the present debate. Seamus Close was right to raise that for consideration. We are acutely aware of the sensitivities involved, and the SDLP would no doubt have much to say about the abandonment of that principle. My personal feeling and the view of the Liberal Democrats is that at this point it would be premature to abandon the principle on a wholesale basis, because it underpins a large part of what has been shown to be successful in forcing the many different parties in Northern Ireland to work together.
	I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I am sure that he could give examples of business being held up by the need for cross-community support, but it is probably more necessary to have that brake in the system than expedient to remove it at this stage. If one considers the history of the Good Friday agreement and the Assembly, one realises that a great deal has been achieved through consensus, but of course that is not reported in the news so much because it is not controversial. In domestic and social policy, the cross-community requirement has served to improve the quality of the legislation passed, and has certainly improved the prospects of ensuring that decisions made in the Assembly have cross-community applicability. For those reasons, I would resist such change.
	It is necessary for the Assembly and all of us to allow space for blue-sky thinking so that more controversial and creative thoughts can come forward. In such a debate, we may come across third alternatives that win on all sides.
	I remind the House what the Alliance party was suggestingthat the two Governments appoint an independent person of domestic and international standing to monitor paramilitary activities in Northern Ireland. That was originally conceived as a means whereby domestic and political pressure could be brought to bear on those engaged in sinister deeds and deeds detrimental to the normalisation of the Province. It was not so much about catching people out in order to impose sanctions as about embarrassing groups into changing their undesirable actions. Sanctions are only a backstop in the event that people do not change their behaviour, and with sanctions come all the dangers about which we have heard from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
	I welcome the recent announcement of the four commissioners. The Secretary of State went into some detail about Commander Grieve, Mr. Brosnan, Mr. Kerr and my noble Friend Lord Alderdice. In my judgment, they have the background, the experience and the authority and respect to ensure that the commission undertakes its role efficiently and effectively. I congratulate the Government on convincing them to take on the role, which was probably more difficult than deciding who would perform it. It is reassuring to know that the tasks of the monitoring commission in investigating paramilitary activity, security normalisation and parties' political commitments will be undertaken by such distinguished persons. I was slightly concerned that we were heading down the path of becoming the appointments panel en masse. Giving 659 politicians the potential to make such appointments will guarantee that we never achieve consensus. To that extent, I am willing to tolerate the concession to the political hierarchy of accepting that the decisions will be made by a small number of individuals connected with the Northern Ireland Office.
	In another place, concerns were expressed about the powers of the Secretary of State. Given the Liberal Democrats' involvement in tabling an amendment on that matter, I feel that it is appropriate to raise it now, not least because the Secretary of State himself was silent about it. There was unease about the feeling that the Bill as it stood did not give the Secretary of State the freedom to work positively, ahead of the monitoring commission, if he or she felt that some people or parties in the Assembly were not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. While we appreciated those concerns, my noble Friends in the other place were especially concerned that the commission and Assembly should not be sidelined by any remedy in that regard.
	As I said, we support the commission, and we are firm supporters of devolution. As such, we believe that it is vital to tie the Assembly into the process of any exclusion or strategically important decision that is made, for example, by the Secretary of State. In essence, we are saying that it is essential that the democratically elected body in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to discuss the exclusion of a Minister from its own Executive.
	A range of amendments was tabled in an attempt to address that concern. My noble Friends did not feel able to support the amendments tabled by the Conservatives or Ulster Unionists as they thought that they were too wide, strong and exclusive of the Assembly and the independent monitoring commission to be acceptable. As I said, we believe that it is crucial that both those bodies are involved in any sanctions. That is why my noble Friends tabled an amendment attempting to do two thingsaddress the concerns expressed about the Secretary of State's ability to act, and ensure the integrity of the monitoring commission and the Assembly in any decision that is made. The amendment was agreed and is now part of clause 6.
	With the amendment in place, the Secretary of State would indeed be able to exclude Ministers or junior Ministers from office if he felt that there were exceptional circumstances. That would include a situation in which something happened and he felt it prudent to act immediately without waiting for a report from the commission or for the Assembly to discuss the exclusion. There could subsequently be a space of 24 hours before the Assembly could discuss a motion seeking to exclude Ministers, or perhaps a few days. Let us remember that a week is a very long time in politics. We have seen many times in Northern Ireland a situation that began in tension ending in crisis within hours or days.
	That is why we felt that it was appropriate to table an amendment seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State could exclude a Minister from the Executive, but only for a period of two weeks. In that time, the commission would report. Frankly, if something so monumental had happened that the Secretary of State chose to act without reference to the commission, I have no doubt that it would certainly want to investigate and report on it. The Assembly would also debate it. If there is any concern that the Assembly would not discuss exclusion, the Secretary of State can serve a notice on the presiding officer requiring him to table an exclusion motion. There is no question but that a debate could be secured in the Assembly in that period.

Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, because of an amendment to the Liberal Democrat amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, which was agreed, the Secretary of State will have the power of exclusion for two weeks, and the two contingences to which he refers are included in the possibilities involved when the Secretary of State exercises his judgment, albeit that he can do so without those contingencies if he so wishes? That is a very important point.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about claiming credit for the idea of exclusion, before I brought the proposal to the House, over several weeks previously, I discussed the matter in detail, as I always would do, with parties in Northern Ireland, including the Alliance party, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party. If a member of the Alliance party made a statement about exclusion in the days before the debate, he might have been not uninfluenced by his discussion with me in the preceding period.

Lembit �pik: I recall the occasion when the hon. Gentleman suggested that Sinn Fein, and perhaps the IRA, had crumbled from their stubborn position on a matter of important policy becauseI do not quote him exactly, but this is close to what he saidthe Conservatives had chosen to debate it on an Opposition day.
	I applaud optimism. Indeed, as a Liberal Democrat I am a perpetual optimist, not least in regard to a by-election that will take place tomorrow. I will leave it not just to Members here but to the Alliance party, whose members assiduously read the Hansard reports of all our proceedings, to decide who is right and who is wrong; but if it can be shown that the hon. Gentleman was the architect of this inspirational idea, in a spirit of fairness I shall buy him a gin and tonic when we return from the recess, however damaging that may be to my social credibility.
	The hon. Gentleman made a substantive point as well. It would, I think, be very undesirable for the Secretary of State to operate unilaterally, without respect for the commission or indeed the Assembly. As ever, there is a degree of interpretationand there will always be a degree of precedentgoverning how an amendment or legislation is established; but just as I have no doubt that the commission would report very shortly after any period of exclusion implemented by the Secretary of State, I consider it pretty much inconceivable that any Secretary of State could withstand the pressure to ensure that it did report, and that the Assemblyif it was sittinghad an opportunity to discuss the report. Failure to do so would not just be disrespectful to the democratically elected body in Northern Ireland; it would make a mockery of the Bill.
	In the event of the Assembly's failure to achieve cross-community support for an exclusion motion, the decision would revert to the Secretary of State under clause 5. While giving the Secretary of State a certain amount of discretion, the clause ensures that both the commission and the Assembly are ultimately included in any decision about the exclusion of Ministers from office. The Liberal Democrats consider the involvement of those bodies to be critical.
	I realise that there will be some discussion about the latitude within which we can operate. I am aware of the tensions and pressures affecting others involved in this debate, not least politicians in Dublin. I sincerely hope that Ministers will accept their responsibility to ensure that any dialogue with key decision makers, here and in Dublin, that is needed to bring about consensus in favour of the Bill will indeed take place.
	It is here that the compressed time scale is perhaps most critical. The Government, having decided in their wisdom to compress the entire debate into nine continuous hours, must also take responsibility for ensuring that our partners in the peace process are involved directly and expeditiously in the ironing out of any problems caused by pressures. Obviously, I hope that there will be no such pressures, but I do not think anyone other than the Government is responsible for disposing of them, given that the Government have chosen to truncate a process that was designed specifically to ensure that no such pressures would arise as a result of our decisions.
	Another key point relates to pensions. I have raised it before, and I hope that if we have an opportunity to discuss the amendments in detail the Minister will provide a plausible explanation for the fact that salaries can be curtailed while pensions are untouched. It massively reduces the credibility of the sanction to say You will suffer in the present, but in the long term you need not worry, because on the day you retire you will receive everything that would have come to you if you had not been mucking about. Ministers should perhaps consider whether there are grounds for changing the relevant provision, perhaps today on Report. Indeed, if that is possible we need not hold up the very tight agenda that the Government have presented us with.
	It is clear that the Bill's essential purpose is to act as a confidence-building measure for all in Northern Ireland. Matters of interest to everyone in the community will be investigated and reported. Paramilitary activity, security normalisation and any claims that a political party is not observing the pledge of office can come, as I understand it, under the commission's remit. I hope that, in considering the Bill's provisions so quickly, we have not missed some crucial points, thereby making it less effective.

Andrew MacKinlay: As I understand itthis is really a question for Front Benchersa Minister's allegedly not fulfilling the pledge of office is one of the issues reserved for the two UK-appointed commissioners. If one were indisposed, could the other act alonein other words, is the quorum one? Do they have to meet formally, or can they communicate by post, telegraph or pigeon? This is a very real point: do the two British commissioners dealing with strand 1 institutional issues have to come together, or can one of them act alone?

Lembit �pik: I shall let the Minister respond to that point. Such salient and practical matters need at least to be put on the record to provide guidance for the future.
	This is a confidence-building measure, but as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford rightly said, the most confidence-damaging measure of late was probably the postponement of the elections, and in that regard I am forced to agree with him about the fifth cardinal sin committed by the Government. They have postponed the elections twice, and there is little confidence in the Province that they would not be comfortable with doing so again. As he correctly pointed out, that takes the heat off, in terms of focusing on garnering support in the constituencies. We will all agree that it would be totally unacceptable for the Government to choose the election date to try to achieve a particular political outcome, just as they would never dream of doing so on the mainland, on the occasion of a general election. Of course, the difference in Northern Ireland is that they have to change the law to change the election date, which is a serious business indeed. Liberal Democrats do not consider it acceptable to change the election date, but we also feel that the Government have to climb the mountain of credibility again whenever they talk about confidence-building measures. That is a great shame.
	We agree in principle with this measure, which goes beyond the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That Act dealt with exclusion but only the Assembly could exclude, and there was no censure resolution or financial penalties. So this Bill has gone further, and in our view the amendment to it could be regarded in the same category as the censure resolution and financial penalties.
	I hope that the Minister can answer our questions, that we get further reassurance about the election date, that we get some perspective on the amendment passed in the other place, and that the question asked by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is answered. I hope, too, that we are all looking for solutions rather than victories, and that we recognise that no single measure will be successful if people set their faces against getting an effective Assembly up and running in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh pointed out, however hard we try in this place, we are talking about a contrivance that requires a positive attitude to make it work. Still, Liberal Democrats feel that if this Bill succeeds in moving our attitude forward by increasing the mutual good faith that exists in the Provincethereby ensuring that we get back to the democratic process, which must run hand in hand with the peace processat a strategic level it is worth passing it.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion of the implementation and compliance of the common fisheries policy, the Ayes were 235, the Noes were 155, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed.

Harry Barnes: I recognise the significance of the measures proposed by the Liberal Democrats in the other place to press some extra powers on a reluctant Secretary of State. That can be valuable in certain circumstances. I notice that Lord Smith of Clifton, who was my former politics tutor at the university of Hull, introduced the debate there. If I do not look young enough, it is because I was an adult student at the time.
	I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), certain sections of which were very powerful, especially on the misuse of views about the assassination of Sergeant McCabe and the position on Jean McConville. The rhetoric was particularly important.
	It also seems to me that important rhetoric is contained in the agreement between the two Governments. Paragraph 12 states:
	Five years after the Agreement, the transition to exclusively democratic means must now be completed. Ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence, and criminality masquerading as a political cause, are all corrosive of the trust and confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process.
	Paragraph 13 continues:
	Paramilitarism and sectarian violence, therefore, must be brought to an end.
	It later refers to the need for paramilitary groups to
	make it clear that they have made such an historic act of completion, and that this is reflected in reality on the ground.
	The measures in the Bill are attempts to move in that direction. It is important for Governments and politicians to say what it is all about and to be involved in the high hopes of the people. Powerful rhetoric can, if people actively pursue it, change attitudes, so the words used by politicians are important.
	I think that it is bad enough that new Labour has got rid of its socialist policies, but it is far worse that it has got rid of the rhetoric of socialism, because rhetoric offers hopes for the future, for changes and developments. Even if a battle is not won now, people still have some hope around the corner that changes will take place. I might fall into those positions in condemning much of the violence and paramilitary activity that takes place in Northern Ireland, but I realise that words alone will not help to resolve positions. There is a danger, and it applies even to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and myself on occasions, that words become a substitute for the hard positions that are necessary for action to take place.
	I read out a few moments ago the principles contained in the agreement. Even if we have agreed to push the barriers further back in the hope that bodies such as the Provisional IRA will fall into line and go ahead with acts of completion, there must be a point at which the barrier remains firmly in place, whatever the consequences might be. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was worried about triggering a situation in which the entire agreement came tumbling down when, at last, action was taken, presumably against Sinn Fein, which made it face up to its responsibilities. There is a stage at which, when we have tried almost everything under the sun, another measure becomes the next stage of development and we will reach the end-point of the game if no action is taken fully to live up to the measures.

Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the agreement the commission was set certain guidelines, targets and dates, to do with government and normalisation, but that the provisions on paramilitaries were open-ended?

Harry Barnes: I do not think that the agreement is open-ended on terrorism, because it states in the provisions for the commission that it can report on such matters and seek to initiate legal action. It will have to face up to those issues as they arise. The commission will be tested by those issues. Paramilitaries may back off, because of the action that would be taken against them, or the arrangements might crumble, because the paramilitaries do not like what the commission does.
	The rhetoric of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh did not carry the day in terms of the legal technicalities of what was said in the House of Lords and whether we could take or leave the Bill according to the occasion. The situation is analogous to an international treaty, in which the Government can engage under royal prerogative powers. On occasions, a treaty might have national implications and would then be discussed by the whole Houseas in the case of the Maastricht treaty. What happens then can knock the measure into touch or require the treaty to be tweaked or altered if it is to be adopted. Therefore it is relevant for us to discuss amendments to the Bill later today.
	The Secretary of State has been questioned about whether past issues, such as the problems in Colombia and Castlereagh involving the Provisional IRA, can be investigated. We were promised the answer when the Minister winds up. In my opinion, the answer will be that such issues cannot be investigated, because the agreement talks of
	any continuing activity by paramilitary groups.
	Some attempt to claim that anything that happens now is in some way linked to events in the past, in order to try to fulfil the criteria of continuing activity. That might be a shortcoming for some people, and they may wish to amend the Bill accordingly.

David Burnside: It appears that the legal action on Sinn Fein-IRA activity in support of FARC, the terrorist movement in Colombia, will not be concluded before this legislation passes through the House, which will be quite soon. In that case, does the hon. Gentleman think that Colombia should be on or off the agenda?

Harry Barnes: I think that Colombia is liable to be off the agenda as far as the commission is concerned. It does not mean that it has to be off the agenda as far as the Northern Ireland Office or the general political process is concerned. An interesting report on the financing of terrorism was produced by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and it raised questions about American involvement and FARC activity. The investigations by the police and other forces, and the NIO, will be able to continue, so that action can take place.
	I asked the Secretary of State earlier about the relationship between clauses 2 and 3. It is possible that my point in that short intervention was not as clear as it should have been. Paragraph 3 of the agreement between the British and Irish Governments states:
	Any incidents of non-compliance by any party will . . . be subject to either political exposure or, where appropriate, the process of law.
	I presume that political exposure will happen through reports made to the House. It struck me that a problem with clause 2 could inhibit the nature of a report under clause 3. Obviously, I do not want the contents of a report to put people's lives at risk, or prejudice future legal proceedings, but there is some restraint on what the commission can tell us.
	If the commission believes that it knows who is involved in a certain activity, and that that person should be exposed, that could be achieved by means of a statement to the House, which would be privileged. However, that could still affect future legal proceedings. Alternatively, the life of a person implicated in the serious paramilitary activity proscribed by the agreement could be put at risk, as a result of the activity of opposing paramilitary forces. Does that mean that we will not find out who is involved in paramilitary activity? If so, the Bill will be less effective than intended.
	My final point has to do with on-the-runs. The material on the Bill placed in the Library by the Northern Ireland Office for this debate contains a documentProposals in Relation to On the Runsthat was agreed in April 2003. It makes it clear that, in future, certain rules will apply to people who are on the run, and it seems that some sort of offer is being made to the paramilitary organisations. The offer is that, if on-the-runs play ball with the work of the commission and act according to the principles that it supports, they will get the clearance outlined in the document.
	The document is the carrot and we are now discussing the stick. The problem is that people, when offered a carrot, will sometimes go after that incentive, in the hope that they can get round other limitations placed on them. Before any provisions are implemented in respect of on-the-runs and the conditions that they would have to observe, I want to ensure that people who are on the run from the on-the-runs, and their organisations, are free to return to Northern Ireland, if that is what they wish. The agreement between the two Governments refers to such exiles, if only by inference, and they must be provided for. That matter must be sorted out.
	I generally favour the Bill. I recognise that we are moving the goalposts back in the hope that the game can be completed. However, there must come a point at which we say, That's it. This is that point, and it must be reached without there being some way of wheedling matters so that those on the run can be got off the hook.

David Trimble: Let me comment on the closing words of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), without endorsing any form of amnesty, because we have always opposed any provision with regard to on-the-runs. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work over the years in highlighting the plight of those who have been forced to leave as a result of paramilitary intimidation. They have become exiles from Northern Ireland and can return only at risk to themselves. His significant contribution in bringing the focus to bear on that form of paramilitary abuse should be recognised. We would all agree entirely with what he said about exiles.
	The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made a compelling contribution, particularly when he talked about the activities of paramilitarism and about how he understood the feelings that exist. I endorse a lot of what he said about that. He referred to the way in which some sectors of society almost glorify those who have been involved in violence, and he criticised in particular the broadcast media and the press. That brought into my mind a newspaper article published today, as did his mention of the planned celebration for those who escaped from the Maze prison many years ago. The Independent today carries a huge spread on that subject. I have not read the article by Mr. David McKittrick, and I do not prejudge it. I did not get as far as reading the article because the graphic at the top of the page was enough for me to throw the paper away. It superimposed on a photograph of the Maze prison small photographs of some escapers along with little notes about who they were and what their contributions had been.
	The note on one escaper referred to his having been
	at the forefront of the peace process.
	Who was that? Mr. Bobby Storey. Since the agreement, Mr. Bobby Storey may have been at the forefront of some things, but they certainly were not the peace process. [Interruption.] I can hear some comments being made about some of the achievements to Mr. Storey's credit over the past few years.
	The glorification of that gentleman in that newspaper illustrates precisely what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was saying. The attitude among some politicians and members of the media has made achieving completion of the peace process more difficult. The whole process is predicated on giving to those involved in violence in the past the opportunity to move towards peaceful democratic politics. That process is impeded or delayed while some people tolerate, or even encourage, the glorification of paramilitary activities and paramilitarism. Any commentator, politician, newspaper or television programme that engages in that behaviour is helping to undermine the process in which we have all been engaged.
	We will broadly endorse the Bill, but it should not, in many respects, be before us at all. If successive Secretaries of State had done their job properly over the past four or five years and if the Government had done their job and kept their pledges, it would not be necessary for us examine such legislation. In that respect, there is much merit in what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said.
	My colleagues and I started to argue in the spring and summer last year for the creation of some sort of arrangement to monitor ceasefires, simply because successive Secretaries of State had failed to do so. After the agreement, we had the unedifying spectacle of continuing paramilitary activity and of Secretaries of State failing to identify it as such and brushing it under the carpetone Secretary of State used the phrase internal housekeeping about murder. If it had not been for that approach, we would not have had some of the difficulties that have arisen in the past four or five years and it would not have been necessary for us to consider this measure.
	One of the objects of this exerciseit is sad that this has to be the caseis to make it difficult for Ministers to turn a blind eye. Those people who have taken on responsibility in the independent monitoring commission should clearly understand that. Their job is not to support the Government; by scrutinising paramilitary activity and reporting on it clearly and accurately, their job is to ensure that the Government do not fail to carry out their functions in these matters.
	The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh regretted the fact that instead of doing the job ourselves we are once again turning to someone outside, and I sympathise entirely with him. When the suggestion was made last summer, ensuring that this scrutiny was done properly was in the forefront of my mindgetting the right people to ensure that the Secretary of State did not dodge the column. Indeed, hon. Members may be interested to know that one of the first suggestions that I madeif not the very firstwhen we were thinking of a single ceasefire monitor was the distinguished Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, whose achievements in a wide range of fields are extremely well known. Indeed, his achievements with regard to ETA are significant, as are those in outing the dirty war committed by the socialist Government of Spain.

David Burnside: One of the great contributions of that Spanish gentleman resulted in the proscription of Batasunathe front organisation of ETA, which I do not believe will be debated later this evening.

David Trimble: If my hon. Friend looks at the dates, he will notice that that happened after I had identified Baltasar Garzon as a first-class person for this job, so I am not surprised at what he describes.
	In an intervention, I referred to the fact that as a result of the representations of my party and others, we made some progress in persuading the Government of the desirability of moving down this roadestablishing some oversight of ceasefires. A statement was made to the House on 25 July last year. Unfortunately, that statement was not emphatic enough in its commitment and it did not give any sense that there would be a radical change in the Government's approach. That was a great disappointment to us.
	The day after the statement, a colleague contacted the Government to say that as a result of the way the issue had been fumbled in the House, we could expect a violent summer and a political crisis in the autumn, which is precisely what happened. As hon. Members will remember, last summer was certainly the worst for violence and public disorder that we have had in the Belfast region since long before the ceasefires. That was no accident, and it could largely be attributed to the Government sending the wrong signals last summer.
	The crisis came in the autumn, with what we call Stormontgate, although it was slightly different from what I had anticipated. Stormontgate was in fact part of the same operation that led to the Castlereagh raid. There were two manifestations, but both arose from a widespread intelligence gathering operation conducted by the mainstream IRA. To ensure that I do not prejudice future legal proceedings, I shall not mention the person in the IRA who was responsible for directing both Castlereagh and Stormontgate[Interruption.] We should not have sedentary interruptions on that point.
	As a result of the crisis, we had suspension. If, in June or July last year, the Government had taken up the suggestions that I and other parties made in the spring and early summer and put in place some form of ceasefire monitor or sanctions, we might not have had suspension in 2002. These provisions come a long time after the event, to try to repair the damage done by the Government due to their mistakes in managing the process.
	Since suspension, questions obviously arise about the circumstances in which there could be a return to devolution and to the Assembly and the Executive. The criteria have been spelt out by our party, embodied in a resolution of the Ulster Unionist council of September 2002. They were reflected in language used by the Prime Minister in his speech at the Belfast harbour office in October last year and, as was pointed out earlier, elements of them were reflected in comments about the ending of paramilitary activity made by the Minister of State to a Standing Committee last Tuesday.
	The ending of paramilitary activity has repeatedly been defined. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that the time scale, too, has been defined. The relevant paragraphparagraph 13of the joint declaration refers to the immediate ending of paramilitary activity. The time scale embodied in the word immediate is fairly clear.
	Decommissioning is also required; it has not been forgotten. Again, careful perusal of the documentation makes that clear. Actions are needed that effectively carry us towards completion. It must be clear that the process is moving to a conclusion, according to the definitions that have been offered.
	It is necessary not only for paramilitary activity to end but for a clear indication as to the future status, role and structure of the organisation currently referred to as the Irish Republican Army. We need to know that the cessation of paramilitary activity and decommissioning are more than here-and-now events. We need to know what is intended and what is likely to happen in the future.
	Those things have not yet happened, although we know that considerable efforts were made in March and April to obtain adequate responses on those matters and that the republican movement failed to make adequate responses. Hopes have been expressed by several hon. Members that we can make progress, that we can get the Assembly back, reform the Executive and hold the elections that would be necessary for that. However, to do so, the underlying problems of paramilitary activity must be resolved.
	A mere glance at the calendar shows us that, if we are to move to elections in the autumn, it will be necessary for the republican movement to take those steps during the next few weeks. I am not in a position to define how much time there is, but it is important to note that time is limited and that action must occur quickly. We cannot have the sort of spun-out, long-delayed process that we have had in the past. Things need to move very quickly indeed. I hope that they do, because to go through another winter with the political process in uncertainty and with the institutions continuing to be suspended would be deeply damaging.

John Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the words that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) uttered in Committee on 9 September, when she provided a litany of the steps to be taken by republican terrorists before an election can be considered?

David Trimble: Indeed, I am aware of those steps, and the right hon. Lady gave a full and detailed description of what is involved in relation to the ending of paramilitary activity in her contribution in Committee last week. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in addition, I referred to the need for decisive action to be taken in relation to decommissioning and for clear indications about future conduct because action in the here and now is, of course, extremely valuable, but we also need to find out where things will rest in the future.
	I was referring to the damaging effect if the uncertainty is prolonged into the winter and the spring. A simple point underlies all this, and it was also touched on by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. Suspension punishes everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Suspension took the Northern Ireland Assembly and all its Members out of operation because paramilitaries linked to a few had been engaged in unacceptable activity. It is in itself unacceptable that all the institutions should be suspended, consequently depriving Northern Ireland's electorate of the opportunity of democratic representation in the Assembly, because a handful of people have behaved badly.
	It may be that the Government, for whatever reason, were not prepared to take the necessary action in October. It may be that the Bill will give them the power to take that action in the future, but the legislation will bite only after the resumption of the Assembly. At present, the Assembly is suspended and the offices are vacated, and the penalties in the Bill will have no effect this side of resumption. Of course, without progress from paramilitaries, do we get resumption? So the legislation will have no impact until we are the other side of the resumption of the Assembly, the re-formation of the Executive and, of course, the elections, which should have taken place. There is a significant question that the Government need to address: what happens if we do not see sufficient acts of completion from republicans? We cannot be expected to remain excluded indefinitely from the Assembly and the Executive because of the fault of others? If the Government find that they have been unable to make progress come 15 November, the Governmentthe Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or whoeverwill have to come to the Dispatch Box and give hon. Members and, through us, the people of Northern Ireland, a clear explanation of what the future holds, rather than simply relying on hope and saying, Well, we'll keep on trying, even after 13 months of trying time and again. If that is what the Secretary of State says, the general assumption will be that we are going back into deep cold storage and direct rule for years, perhaps decades. There is a danger of drift, and the Government must know that they ought not to allow that drift to occur and that, during the next few months, they will have to find answers to the questions that I have put.
	This legislation is essentially intended for a post-devolution situation, and it is needed because of the lack of confidence that exists. Let us assume that we had a statement from P. O'Neill announcing the disbandment of the IRA, for which many Unionists have called. If such a statement were made, how would we know whether it had happened? The IRA is a secret armyan underground organisation. There are some indications in terms of activities, but how can we tell whether an underground army has disbanded? A huge element of trust is involved in that, and in view of what has happened over the last several years, that trust is in short supply. The need is for the monitoring commission not just to monitor activity but to attribute responsibility, for it to give the people of Northern Ireland a guarantee that, if an organisation says that it has disbanded, that it has ceased activity and that there will not be any activity in the future, someone independent of the Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State will blow the whistle if it turns out that that claimed disbandment did not occur and that a secret element within the private army continues to exist and be active. That is why it is important.
	The reserve power for the Secretary of State to act is also important not just because in the practical circumstances of the last five years an exclusion motion was never carried in the Assembly, but to provide a reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland if, as a consequence of an election, it appears that an exclusion motion might never be carried in the future in the Assembly under the existing rules. The reserve power is therefore important for the future, and I will return in a moment to the question of the reserve power for the Secretary of State as currently defined.
	Nothing in this world is without difficulty or free from problems. It has been suggested that there are some fundamental problems with this legislation, particularly with regard to preserving sovereignty. At the strict legal level, there is no problem with sovereignty, because the agreement to create the monitoring arrangement is very clear. In its last couple of sentences, it talks about what might happen in the event of continuing paramilitary activity, and includes the phrases,
	it would be a matter for the British Government . . . to resolve the matter . . . The British Government would envisage amending the Northern Ireland Act . . . to enable a variety of responses.
	Of course, this legislation amends that Act and confers the power to act on the British Government and the British Government alone. In strict legal terms, therefore, there is no breach of sovereignty on this issue at all.
	There are two areas, however, about which people might have concerns. One is with regard to the ground rules that we developed for the inter-party talks. In developing those ground rules, there was one important issue on which I and my colleagues were careful to insist: that while the inter-party talks included the British Government and the Irish Government, as well as the political parties in Northern Ireland, strand 1 of those talks should be between the political parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government alone, and that the Irish Government should have no participation in strand 1. As originally drafted, the paper that appeared at the beginning of May appeared to breach that. I am glad that the international agreement, the draft of which has been published, makes it clear that the strand 1 issue has been resolved. Some people have queried whether that is so, and I have referred to article 6 of that draft agreement, which refers in (a) to whether people are committed to
	non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means
	and in (b) to whether they have
	failed to observe any other terms of the pledge of office,
	which relates to the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The provision that has been made in the draft agreement to preserve the strand 1 issue relates to (b) but not to (a). It has therefore been suggested that the sovereignty issue has not been resolved with regard to (a). To those who make that point, I say that what we have in this agreement is precisely what we had during the inter-party talks. The details of the operation of the Assembly are a strand 1 issue, but the question of someone's fundamental commitment to the process and to peace and exclusively peaceful and democratic means has regard to the talks as a whole.
	The distinction can be illustrated by remembering what happened during the talks. During the talks, a number of violent incidents took place that were attributed to paramilitaries who were related to parties that were engaged in the process. Most of the talks took place in Belfast, but it will be recalled that there were two weeks outone in London and one in Dublin. By coincidence, when we got to London, the entire week was taken up with the question of whether the Ulster Democratic partywhich had links with the Ulster Defence Association, a paramilitary organisationshould be excluded from the talks because of violence committed by the UDA. When we got to Dublin, the whole time was taken up with the question of whether Sinn Fein should be excluded from the talks because of violent acts committed by the IRA.
	How were those issues conducted and resolved? In both cases, exclusion occurred but the decision was taken jointly by the British and Irish Governments in exactly the manner to which article 6(1)(a) relates. The position in the agreement is precisely what happened during the talks. When we were in Lancaster house or Dublin castle and we were urging the Governments to exclude both the Ulster Democratic party and Sinn Fein, it was never suggested that there was any great breach of sovereignty there or that any fundamental principle was being violated. Those who are concerned about the matter should consider it in that context and see that it is entirely in accordance with the precedents established in the talks.
	I have dealt with what is called the strand 1 issue, but there is another aspect of sovereignty that we must consider. I have referred to the reserve power for the Secretary of State; it is crucial that there is that reserve power. However, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was right to say that the Bill, as published, fettered that power unduly because the power would arise only when there was first a determination or report by the monitoring commission with a recommendation. If there were no report or recommendation, there would be no power for the Secretary of State. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that that was too great a fetter on the Secretary of State's power and that a power conditioned in that way would not reassure the public.
	I hope that the independent monitoring commission will work. We do not know what the future holds and we do not know exactly how the IMC will operate. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked about the IMC's rules of procedure, its quorum and whether its decisions would be based on unanimity or a majority. We do not know the answers to those questions, and we do not know the pressures that may be brought to bear on the individuals concerned. I am generally content with the individuals concerned but we are moving into uncharted territory. It would be wrong to assume that everything will be all right and that we do not need to make sensible provision for unforeseen circumstances.
	Because it is wise to make provision for unforeseen circumstances and for emergencies that might not occur, it is right for the Secretary of State to have a reserve power that he can actually use. Not making provision for such a power is not something that Governments usually do when they draft legislation. When drafting legislation, efforts are usually made to try to provide for contingencies. Friedman has referred to the law of unintended consequences and unanticipated events, and it is better to have a reserve provision that might at least cope with them than to proceed on the assumption that everything will be all right and that there will be no problems. Given the history of Northern Ireland over the past few years, it is wrong to proceed as though there will never be problems.
	As originally drafted, the Bill was seriously defective. That was why my colleagues in another place tabled amendments, which have been tabled again for consideration today. If the amendments had been passed, they would have resolved the problem entirely. At one stage, we thought that they recommended themselves to the Liberal Democrats but when it came to the bit, they unfortunately went off on a venture of their own and drafted an amendment without thinking the matter through carefully. Their amendment was an endeavour to provide a reserve power but it was seriously defective. I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford about Lord Glentoran's work in the other place because he improved the Liberal Democrat amendment significantly, although it remains defective.

Lembit �pik: Given that that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, it is a matter of regret that, despite my efforts to consult him, he did not try to respond in a like kind. It might have been possible for us to negotiate but his silence indicated that that would not happen.

David Trimble: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's comments because I had several meetings with Liberal Democrats last week and a conversation with him on these Benches. Subsequently, on Friday, I had a conversation with his party leader, so I am not sure to what he refers. I responded clearly about our position up until Friday night. I do not wish to inquire about the internal affairs of his party because I know that a party's internal activities are sometimes difficult to fathom. However, my limited acquaintance with the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords has told me that, whatever the difficulties in my party might be, there are huge difficulties elsewhere that are comparable, if not greater. Perhaps we should draw a discreet veil over such matters.
	Although Lord Glentoran improved the Liberal Democrat amendment that appears as clause 6, it is still defective and in need of improvement. I have tabled a few amendments, several of which are technical. Indeed, one would insert a safeguard on the Secretary of State's power so that he could exercise it only if he were satisfied that people were not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic meansI was rather surprised that the Liberal Democrats omitted such a measure. They also omitted another measure that is fairly obvious if one reads comparable provisions, so I have tabled amendments to make the clause more effective.
	Of course, I would prefer it if the group of amendments that we have tabled that starts with amendment No. 2 were accepted. I refer to those amendments because I have looked at the clock and I am not confident that we shall have the opportunity to debate them. I put on record the fact that, although the Liberal Democrat amendment goes some way toward solving the problem, we would much prefer the group of amendments linked to amendment No. 2.
	May I also draw attention to new clause 5? It is extremely important because it embodies a significant aspect of the agreement that is, regrettably, not replicated in the Bill. I quoted previously part of a sentence that appears toward the end of the agreement on the establishment of the monitoring body. It says:
	it would be a matter for the British Government . . . to resolve the matter in a manner consistent with the report of the Independent Monitoring Body.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech about those amendments on Second Reading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me say to the House that the matter is generally one of proportionality. Obviously there can be reference to possible amendments, but I would not expect any hon. Member to go into too much detail. I was listening carefully to what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was saying. I might also offer the view to the House that the progress that we make and whether we shall be able to have a certain number of hours in Committee is up to hon. Members. I appeal to hon. Members to determine for themselves how they wish the time to be shared.

David Trimble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My intention was simply to emphasise how important that part of the agreement was to us. I hope very much that we get the chance to have a detailed debate on that and that the Government get the opportunity to accept that new clause. That would go a long way to building confidence. As I said at the outset, part of the reason for this is because of the way in which the Government as a whole have handled these issues and their failure to act at particular times. It is necessary for that reason.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) will forgive me if I comment just for a few minutes on an issue that has been raised by amendments that his party has tabled. There is some merit in the points that he has raised. Hon. Members have referred to the disjunctionthe inequalitybetween failure to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which is fundamental to the process, and alleged breaches of other aspects of the pledge of office, which operates on an entirely different plane. It may be thought invidious that those two are linked together and that is a view with which I have much sympathy.
	I will not go into detail or mention names, if only to protect the guilty, but when the issue was first raised at a discussion involving a number of parties, it was suggested that rather than have it look as though we were focusing all our attention in terms of sanctions purely on one particular party, we should have provisions that meant that other parties, not just Sinn Fein, might potentially be in breach. Why just point the finger at that party? The finger could be pointed at any one of us, was the phrase that was used. I remember in that discussion saying that, when that particular person volunteered for punishment, he was certainly not speaking for me, but, unfortunately, the suggestion was made, the idea was out and other people ran with it. It is not an idea that I have thought appropriate in this context. Consequently, if we reach those DUP amendments, I will feel a lot of sympathy for them, but that depends on circumstances.
	It is desirable that a variety of penalties are provided for. One reason why the Government were reluctant to act on continuing paramilitary activity was that the only sanction that existed was the nuclear option of exclusionthere was a reluctance, sometimes understandable, to use that nuclear option. With other penalties, if the infringements are not that serious or not thought to justify the nuclear option, at least there is a way in which the Assembly or the Government, if that is the case, can formally indicate their displeasure and dissatisfaction, and that is extremely useful.
	I will not say much about the membership of the commission. Some of the gentlemen are not directly known to me but, from what I do know, the membership has a good balance. We have on the commission someone who, as part of the Metropolitan police, specifically dealt with anti-terrorist activity; someone who, as secretary general, the equivalent of permanent secretary, at the Irish Department of Justice has clear familiarity with criminal law and legal procedures; and someone who, as deputy director of the CIA, is accustomed to handling intelligence matters.
	We have three specialists with practical information and that is balanced by someone from Northern Ireland, who will be able to inform the views of those specialists, to tell them how things are perceived in Northern Ireland and to reflect the views of people in Northern Ireland. He may, if it is necessary, be able to act as a whistleblower to the people of Northern Ireland if the specialists for some reason fail to deal with the issues seriously enough.
	I make one small point with regard to the procedures. It is unfortunate that the procedures in the intergovernmental agreement make reference to the implementation group. There is no implementation group in the Belfast agreement. It is a novel concept that has come forward since. It has tended to undermine some basic concepts in the agreement. When the idea was first proposed, it seemed to have some utility, but the way in which it has developed lately is not advisable. It is unfortunate that it has been given a central role, when its structure is not properly representative. I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on it and things that have been spun off it that are even less representative and capable of developing things that should be done by political parties in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that that novel concept, which was originally devised to give comfort to certain parties, is now taking on an unwanted life of its own. It may be dangerous, as it is undermining some of the basic concepts in the agreement.
	That brings me to my final point which, I hope, will commend itself to other Members on these Benches. An important aspect of the agreement is the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave on 10 April. I do not have the text before me, but he said that, if the procedures in the agreement on excluding from office persons who are not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means proved ineffective, he would support changes to the agreement. Those were the general terms of his undertaking, and my colleagues and I gave them considerable weight in our decision to proceed. To a certain extent, the Northern Ireland Act 2000the suspension Actput that undertaking into effect, but did not do so directly. It dealt with the issue indirectly and, for the reasons mentioned earlier, unsatisfactorily.
	Now, however, the Government, five years late, are fulfilling their pledgeI hope that that is what is happening. But the way in which they originally drafted the legislation was halting and hesitant. If they want the process to prosper, they need to fulfil their pledge wholeheartedly in a way that builds confidence. I hope that they do so and that we get the chance to deal with the detailed amendments. I hope that the Government will respond to them positively, although that hope has not always been met in the past. I hope that they will deal with these matters on their merits, rather than simply arithmetically and that, as a result of all of this, we can make progress in Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: I should like to start my limited contribution by echoing the sentiments of many on the Opposition Benches about the programming of the Bill. It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce legislation with a guillotine timetable, which will necessarily result in our having no time for any scrutiny or considered reflection. The Government would perhaps be more credible if they were as swift and determined to condemn and penalise parties and individuals who repeatedly violate the terms and spirit of the Belfast agreement as they are in trying to get this Bill through the House in just one day.
	I suspect that, in all fairness, the Secretary of State is under considerable pressure from the Irish Government as well as the Prime Minister. We are all aware of the logjam of Government Bills in the other place. The Secretary of State no doubt wishes to get the Bill through the House to concentrate on the November election for a restored Assembly. Crucially, the Government believe that the creation of the monitoring commission will go a long way towards allaying the fears of the Unionist community, which has become increasingly disillusioned with the Government's repeated concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. To many, that is exactly how recent history post the Belfast agreement appears.
	The Secretary of State referred this afternoon to an absence of satisfactory commitments to end paramilitary activity. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy)I was in the Standing Committee last weekrecently reiterated that acts of completion were needed before the Assembly elections are held. The great majority in all parts of the House agree with both statements. However, many feel that the carrot and stick have not been applied equally in enforcing the Belfast agreement. Many perceive the concessions made at Weston Park in 2001 and the concessions on the dismantling of watchtowers made at Hillsborough in March, with no movement by republicans in return, to be part of a continuing and depressing pattern.
	Let us not forget that decommissioning was meant to have been completed by May 2000. Yet here we are three years laterthree years during which we have witnessed Colombia, Florida, Castlereagh and Stormontgate. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 13 April this year, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree confirmed that there had been three acts of decommissioning carried out by paramilitary organisationsone by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and two by the Provisional IRA.
	On 27 April Gerry Adams stated that the IRA was willing to decommission all its arms and ensure that there was complete and final closure to the conflict. However, his careful phraseology drew the proper response from the Prime Minister that he was being extremely ambiguous on the future of paramilitary organisations. That ambiguity remains.
	I fully support the principle of excluding any party or parties in breach of their responsibilities. It is worth noting that, despite what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) initiated the proposal last July. Had he been listened to at that time, we would probably never have had to dissolve the Assembly, and all that ensued thereafter could have been avoided. As a result of the Government's decision at that time, all parties suffered equally, as did the peace process itself.
	I support the establishment of the monitoring commission. When it was first suggested, it met with strong resistance, not least from the Secretary of State's predecessor the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), but Downing street waded in, and as we now know, the matter once again gained prominence at Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March this year. The terms of reference for the commission are clear. Important points such as strand 1 reserved matters, which relate purely to the two British members, are useful and important.
	Other equally important points are less clear, as has been pointed out by Baroness Park in the other place. Where will the commission get its information from? What powers will it have to obtain information from the British and Irish security services? What will its relationship be with the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and with the Garda Siochana? How much will it all cost? Where will it be based and how will it be staffed? Will it have access to the ongoing work of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Organised Crime Task Force? As we discussed this afternoon, will it be able to investigate past and current alleged violations of the agreement?
	The only body with which we can compare the new body is the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning under General de Chastelain, but what has that body achieved? That commission operates in such secrecy that it is difficult to know whether it has achieved anything of significance. We are asked to take too much on trust, and stonewalled when we ask what terms such as significant and verifiable mean. If the monitoring commission is to have any credibility, it must operate in a more open manner. We must be able to see that progress is being made, that intimidation is stopping, that exiles are being allowed to return and live in peace, and that paramilitaries have ceased both fundraising and stockpiling arms.
	The Government themselves must now take more responsibility for their actions. They cannot continue to set up commissions and abrogate decision making to them. That is why the official Opposition believe that the Secretary of State himself must have the power and ability to exercise his judgment and prerogative to make an exclusion with or without a recommendation from the commission. Anything else would tie his hands and represent an abdication of his responsibility as Secretary of State.
	I concede that Northern Ireland is mercifully a safer place today than before the Belfast agreement, but abuses continue daily, adversely affecting the lives of thousands of wholly innocent people. If we read the papers any day, we will see that that is the case. Only yesterday, The Irish Times contained reports about intimidation of members of the police commission and about a death threat to a Catholic priest made by a so-called loyalist paramilitary group. There was also a report about the dinner that is to be held in Donegal on Friday to commemorate Maze escapees, which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned. I earnestly hope that, as we speak, the Chief Constable is in talks with his opposite number in the Garda to ensure that any on-the-runs who turn up are arrested.
	That is everyday news in a Northern Ireland that is still suffering abuse at the hands of a limited number of people with disruptive agendas of their own. Like my party, I shall always support any measure to combat that continuing menace. If a reformed Assembly is the goal of this Government, it must not be achieved at the cost of principle. The Belfast agreement committed all participants to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. Both the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the new monitoring commission have their part to play in enforcing the agreement. Ultimately, however, it is the Secretary of State who must take responsibility for ensuring that anyone violating the Belfast agreement will be excluded from the democratic process in Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give me latitude by allowing me to put on record at the commencement of my speech my condolences and those of my colleagues to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I trust that his colleague can pass those condolences on. His wife died this week and I think that anybody who has been with him and his wife will know that theirs was a very warm and loving relationship. Indeed, it was a lifelong relationship, which makes the cloud all the darker for him.
	Many in Northern Ireland, or at least those who have studied the Bill, will consider it an odious, unnecessary and loathsome measure that demonstrates two key Government failures. It also attempts to achieve the impossible and prop up the failed agreement. The first Government failure is their admission that, until this moment, they have been unwilling to act on their own behalf or take the necessary powers enabling them to act in order to do their duty by expelling those who have corrupted the political process in Northern Ireland through their involvement in ongoing terrorism. In introducing the Bill, the Government want to share their inertia with others.
	The second Government failure that the Bill demonstrates is that, instead of dealing with those who wish to be at the same time Ministers and members of the army council of the IRA by isolating them and excluding them from the Executive, they seek to link and equate those terrorists with democrats who refuse to partner them in government. I suspect that, in another more enlightened age in society, those who refused to get into bed with the representatives of unrepentant and active terrorism would be applauded and supported by their Governmentbut not here, and certainly not by this Government. Indeed, the Bill even offers the same range and level of penalties against democrats as against terrorists.
	Let me deal first with the origins of the Bill. Reference has been made to the Belfast agreement, which referred to how the Assembly might deal with those who were in breach of the requirement for using exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The paragraph in question appears under that dealing with executive authority and says:
	An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if he or she loses the confidence of the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, for failure to meet his or her responsibilities including, inter alia, those set out in the Pledge of Office.
	On a first reading of that section of the Belfast agreement, it was clear that it would never work. From the moment we read the agreement, we warned the people of Northern Ireland not only that it would not work, but that it was intended not to do so. It was a device to create a pretence that tough action would be taken against terrorism, yet the ability to take such action was not allowed for in the agreement or subsequent provisions contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	Indeed, the 1998 Act contained an additional provision ensuring that, if the Secretary of State was of the opinion that people had been in breach of their anti-violence pledge, he could submit a resolution to that effect and require it to be debated in the Assembly. Interestingly, in the five years when IRA activity was ongoing and we saw the catalogue of incidents that has been mentioned, not once did the Secretary of State, past or present, make any move to ensure that Assembly met to consider breaches of that pledge.
	When we made it clear to the people of Northern Ireland that the exclusion provision would not be workable, we did so on the basis of never contemplating the possibility that the SDLP would be prepared to stand up and exclude its colleagues in Sinn Fein. It was clear to all but the most politically pubescent that a veto would be used by nationalists to ensure that IRA-Sinn Fein were not expelled, no matter what they did, and that no act, no matter how vile or wicked, would irritate the SDLP sufficiently to lead it to exclude IRA-Sinn Fein.
	The evidence is there for all to see. Gun running from Florida did not make the SDLP take action, and nor was the murder of more than 20 people by the Provisional IRA enough to do it. The Provisional IRA shot more than 200 people, but that still was not enough to prompt the SDLP to act. More than 350 paramilitary beatings took place, but even that did not cause it to take action. The exiling of the IRA's opponents took place, but no action was taken. Even training in Colombia, the raiding of Castlereagh and spying at Stormont did not provoke the SDLP sufficiently.
	I cannot imagine that even the most depraved, murderous act that it would have been possible for the Provisional IRA to commit would have provoked the SDLP to vote Sinn Fein-IRA out of office. What I consider even worse is the fact that nothing they did was enough to force the Government to take action against them. The Government knew that the IRA was in breach of the agreement, but could not bring themselves to say as much. So what did they do? They punished everyone. Rather than putting the provos out, they suspended the whole Assembly. Now what do they do? They produce this Bill, in which once again they attempt to pull others into the provos' net. They equate the behaviour of terrorists with the function of Government to decide the appropriate level of security for Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA's security level is to be equated with what is described as normalisationor, in provospeak, British demilitarisation.
	In addition, those who will consider whether the IRA is fit for government will seek to punish the unblinkered democrats who have concluded that Sinn Fein-IRA are not fit to be a partner in government, and who therefore refuse to sit with them in the Executive. The Government have sunk to the level of accepting terrorists as bona fide politicians, so they intend to force others to stoop to their position or else be punished for having the principle and courage to resist.
	As for the scaled-down punishments in the Bill, does any Member actually believe that Sinn Fein will alter its position by one iota because it has been threatened with a fine? My colleagues and I passed on our ministerial salaries so that no hardship would fall to us. At no stage while I was a Minister would the threat of fines have influenced any action I took. These lesser punishments are being placed in the Bill to serve as a pretence that action is being taken while terrorists remain in government.
	Let me say this to the Government. If I refuse to sit on an Executive with Sinn Fein and the House considers that to be an offence that should be punished, my colleagues and I will happily bear that punishment; but to suggest that if I refuse to sit on an Executive with Sinn Fein-IRA all the members of my Assembly party should have their salaries stopped for two years is absurd, and probably does not comply with the European convention on human rights.
	Why are these things in the Bill? Why do the Government now want to punish those of us who acted as Ministers but refused to partner Sinn Fein-IRA? Not once did a motion to exclude us come before the Assembly. Our modus operandi never caused a crisis in the Assembly. No Secretary of State ever suspended the Assembly because we had taken a particular position. No one claimed that we did not fulfil our responsibilities to the whole community effectively and fairly. Indeed, it was quite the opposite: three Secretaries of State, in the House and outside, have praised the work that we did. Let me set modesty aside, and remind the House that frequentlyand almost universallythe press described my colleagues and me as the best Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. But now the Government want to punish us. Why?
	The answer is simple. Indeed, it was given by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The Government cannot bring themselves to tackle Sinn Fein-IRA in isolation; they require balance. There is no Unionist terrorist capable of getting into Government who can be excluded from the Executive or fined, so a democrat who refuses to bow the knee will do just fine. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we are the next best thing. The Government have to find someone whom they can balance with Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Breaches in the pledge of office will be easy to identify, and it will be easy for any monitoring body to consider them and reach a conclusion. That does not apply to those who breach the non-violence pledge. They work in the dark, and make their decisions behind closed doors. Under the Bill, they will even be able to argue that the decision in question was made not by the leadership of the Provisional IRA, but by some maverick group. They will be able to jump through a plethora of loopholesand I shall be interested to discover just how clear the monitoring body will be in tying down the Provisional IRA in relation to any particular incident.
	Why, after all, should the monitoring body differ from former Secretaries of State? As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) will recall, one of them even went to court over a case. She then had to justify the decision she had made in relation to Sinn Fein. Her defence was that, in the round, she considered that it was adhering to its ceasefire. If, despite the list of offences committed by the Provisional IRA over the past five years, the Secretary of State is not prepared to take actionif he cannot pin down the IRAwhat hope have any of us that the monitoring body will do so?
	The Bill is entirely unnecessary. We do not need a monitoring body to tell us when the IRA misbehaves. The Chief Constable is quite capable of informing the Secretary of State of that, and indeed has a duty to do so. He even tells the world publicly when the IRA misbehaves, and I am sure that the General Officer Commanding and the intelligence services will give the Secretary of State whatever advice is needed in respect of Provisional IRA members who have stepped out of line.

Martin Smyth: Did not a former Secretary of State always hide behind the fact that when a Chief Constable gave such advice she would say Why do you not charge these people and bring them before the courts?? She failed to recognise the difference between intelligence and evidence that would stand up in court.

Peter Robinson: There is indeed a distinction to be drawn between what might be of evidential quality and information that the intelligence services might have. There is another distinction, however: fulfilling the requirement in the legislation for the Government to present the Assembly with a resolution stating that the IRA has breached its ceasefire arrangements does not demand evidence of the kind required for a conviction in the court. A political rather than a legal decision is being required of the Secretary of State, and therefore an entirely different level of evidence can suffice.
	The Secretary of State, of course, was never prepared to make that decision. The monitoring body is unnecessary, because the advice has always been there. At all stages, it has been possible to advise the Secretary of State to act. What we need is not more advice, but action by the Government.
	The monitoring body is, in fact, a vehicle for delay and camouflage. Whenever an incident occurs, there is likely to be a cry for the monitoring body, and all the other cogs in the wheel, to take action against the IRA representatives in the Assembly and on the Executive. The process, however, could be dragged out for months, and indeed that is precisely what the Government want. They realise that, given enough time, they will be able to cobble together something that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will swallow again, and back into Government those IRA representatives will go. All that is needed is delay.

David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: I should be delighted.

David Trimble: I shall not refer to the pejorative language used by the hon. Gentleman, which I consider entirely inappropriate. Let me simply ask this question: if, in whatever circumstances, my party and I return to government, will he follow me?

Peter Robinson: Things will have changed so much thatas the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at his end of the Benchthe following will be done by him and not by us. As members of the largest political party in Northern Ireland, we will take steps to ensure that very different structures exist in Northern Ireland from the ones that the right hon. Gentleman yielded to. We have seen the mess that his party, which has held the reins of Unionism for so many years, has made of it. The electorate are looking for the opportunity to make changes, but I have no doubt that behind the scenes, the right hon. Gentleman will urge some caution before the Secretary of State moves towards elections.
	On the composition of the IMC, to listen to the Secretary of State and some others, one would think that we had produced four Solomons whom the community will immediately recognise as people who inspire confidence, and whose judgment can be respected. As with so much that the Government do, they have discriminated in terms of this body's membership, just as they discriminated in terms of the membership of the other place, and even of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which includes not one anti-agreement Unionist, even though such Unionists represent a third of the community.
	Someone asked earlier what urged the Government to start the legislation in the House of Lords. The answer is that they do not have to deal with the depth of argument from anti-agreement Unionists in the House of Lords because they have excluded them. Yet the patronage to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann ensures that a disproportionate share of the Lords has gone to his wing of the Ulster Unionist party.
	So we have a four-man commission, none of whom is an Ulster Unionist. Indeed, there is a fervent Irish nationalist on the panel. One can be absolutely certain that the permanent secretary from the Irish Republic will speak the language of his Government and, through them, of the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein. I liked the language that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) used earlier. He said that he was a sturdy, independent Ulsterman standing on his own two feet. Well, that is not the way I see it. We are talking about a party that has been propped up by the Dublin Government for more than a quarter of a century. Whenever its members did not get their own way, they dug in their heels until Dublin got them out of the mess that they were in. They have refused to stand on their own two feet and deal with Unionism; indeed, doing so on an eye-to-eye basis might have been much better for Northern Ireland than their always getting their parent in Dublin to argue their case for them.
	Two people from outside the United Kingdom have been inserted into this commission, and they will be part of the political decision-making process. Of course, the Government have gifted the Irish Republic's Government with a central role in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. My colleagues and I are not fooled by the sleight of hand that places only two commissioners on the panel that considers Assembly matters. In addition to the rather evasive language used by the Secretary of State today when questioned on that issue, we have read what the Government spokesman in the other place had to say. As the Secretary of State is doubtless keen to have the reference, I can tell him that the following quote is to be found at column 584 of the Official Report of the Lords. The Government spokesman said:
	I should underline
	so this is an important point that he wants to emphasise
	that, as the Hillsborough text makes clear, we would of course consult the Irish Government, as co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, in considering the exercise of that power.[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 584.]
	So the Government spokesman emphasises that the Irish Government are going to be given a direct consultative role before any decision is announced.
	As reference was made to the text, I decided to consult it to see what it said. There are two relevant references, the first of which states:
	Any motion put before the Assembly following the tabling of a report would be subject to decision on a cross-community basis. Where such a motion failed to attract cross-community support, or where the Implementation Group had failed to agree a course of action, it would be a matter for the British Government, in consultation with the Irish Government.
	So it is very clear: reference to consultation is in the text, just as the Lords spokesman indicated. However, the annexe to it goes even further. Paragraph 3 of the annexe states:
	At the request of the Governments
	plural
	the Independent Monitoring Body may be asked to consider claims by any party in the Assembly that another party is in breach of requirements in the Declaration of Support or elsewhere in the Agreement.
	So according to the text, the matter is one for the two Governments.
	We were told in the other place that although we in this House may want to tinker as much as we like through amendments, we cannot make amendments because this is an international, binding agreement, entered into between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Irish Republic. If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh were here at the moment, he would doubtless applaud the fact that the Government spokesman in the Lords said that.
	So it is clear that a direct role is given through the text of the joint declaration, and through the text dealing with the monitoring body at Hillsborougha role confirmed by the Government spokesman in the Lords. The Secretary of State may attempt to side-step the issue by referring to formal consultation, but as everybody knows, the text of an international agreement is pretty formal. I suspect that the Secretary of State recognises that the Government of the Irish Republic have, as many others have been saying for several months, been given a right to interfere in Northern Ireland's internal affairs.
	Of course, if, after consideration, there are those who believe that Sinn Fein-IRA is continuing to promote and support terrorism, no monitoring body and no Secretary of State who offers a contrary opinion will be heeded. What kind of politician would defer their judgment on such matters to any commission, or to any other Government or party? Let me offer an example from the real world of politics, and it is probably not an absurd one. Let us say that the Provisional IRA kills half a dozen people, and that the Unionists in the new Assembly say, This is absolutely disgraceful! We cannot be expected to sit in government with people who, by night, are plotting to murder and carrying out these activities. It would not be unnatural for Unionists to take that position. So off they go to the IMCor to whatever Government structure may exist after the legislation completes its passagewhich says, Well, yes, but that was a bit of a maverick actit wasn't really sanctioned by the leadership. Therefore, we are not going to take any action against them. Does anybody really believe that in those circumstances, the trust that is essential to the Belfast agreement's structure would exist, and that Unionists would be able to continue in government? They would not. Certainly as far as the decision that I have to take is concerned, nobody else's judgment will be able to supersede mine. It would be a very foolish politician who simply accepted another person's judgment on this issue.
	For years, the Government have stretched themselves to prop up this failed agreement. It cannot be propped up by this commission: what is needed is a completely new structure.
	The Government can try to put Humpty Dumpty together again, but they will fail. Better by far that the Government exert themselves in holding an election, letting politicians get a new mandate and make a new start. They should start negotiations for a new agreement, seeking structures that can survive any election result and that IRA activity cannot collapse. They should get an agreement that Unionists as well as nationalists can endorse.
	Hon. Members will have detected that my colleagues and I intend to oppose the Bill. The previous exclusion mechanism has for years been the subject of public ridicule, and this one is no less likely to become the subject of public contempt.

Martin Smyth: I follow the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and in common with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) I recognise the lack of trust in the current positionand that is putting it mildly. In fact, there is a degree of mounting cynicism in Northern Ireland, particularly among Unionists, about the way in which issues that are seen as a threat to the Belfast agreementor, above all, to republican supportare dealt with. The cynicism has reached a point where people believe that it is highly unlikely that Sinn Fein would ever be excluded on its own, no matter what it did. There have been successive suspensions, putting everyone out of office, when only Sinn Fein has been shown not to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The will has never been there to take the terrorists on and force them to leave a democratic Government.
	We should recall some of the issues of the past. I have to say that although the amendments to the Bill state that the Secretary of State shall rather than may, I still have some misgivings, because that will not necessarily restore confidence. Many people will remember that previous Secretaries of State have been involved in the political machinations. No one living in the United Kingdom today should be unaware of the lack of trust in the political system, as revealed by the disclosures over Iraq. We need to go back to recognition of thought processes. Reference has been made to those allegedly in the forefront of the peace agreement. No names were mentioned because other issues may be coming up.
	We must bear it in mind that, in the understanding of Her Majesty's Government, the IRA entered into a military ceasefire. In other words, as long as it was not shooting soldiers or police officers, it could do whatever it liked with civilians. When Mo Mowlam was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, she ruled that the IRA had probably been behind murders, but that that did not constitute a breach of the ceasefire. Word games do not inspire confidence.
	Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the agreement between the UK and the Irish Governments states that the Commission shall assess
	whether the leaderships of the such organisations are directing such incidents or seeking to prevent them.
	It has already been mentioned, and I underline it, that these are word games similar to those of the past. The get-out clauses and excuses are already being established.
	Terrorist organisations are made up of individuals who carry out acts. Dare I suggest that the Bill comes on the stage now as a further sop to the IRA demand to have the date for an election before it can take any forward steps on decommissioning? In other words, the British Government must take the initiative while the IRA holds on to its arms and continues to pose threats.

David Burnside: Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation will not have any impact or effect until after we get the date for the election? The second measure that will come before the House, perhaps in only a few weeks' time, will be the promisesthey are outside the agreement between the Government and Provisional IRAon on-the-runs.

Martin Smyth: That would be what one might call an informed guess. I would not dispute at all that the nods and winks have already been given. Others as well as me believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked, yet we still play the game that they are not. Is the Bill strong enough in specifying that acts of the IRA be linked to the removal of Sinn Fein from office?
	At least two hon. Members have referred to the celebratory events in Letterkenny. It was fascinating the other evening to hear one of the spin doctors for IRA-Sinn Fein justifying it. He said that it came at a time of high emotions when 10 hunger strikers were killed. As I understand it, the hunger strikers took their own lives; they were not killed. He was turning that into an emotional issue. He said that it was an emotional time for them when the then Prime Minister said that the prison was the best protected in the world and it was marvellous to be part of those who escaped from it. They were able to justify it, even though a prison officer died as a result of the breakout. According to British justice, a person is innocent until there is no reasonable doubt, but the judge in that case ruled that the prison officer died of a heart attack rather than from the stabbing of escaping prisoners. We have to reflect on that.
	Can the Minister help us to understand the current state of readiness in the IRA? If the Chief Constable can confirm that certain people have been involved in acts and Monsignor Dennis Faul can claim that they were involved in the abduction and possible murder of a young man in South Armagh, can the Secretary of State or any other Minister tell us that that is false? Above all, are our own intelligence people not telling the Government that, despite the rumours that Gerry Adams is not in control of the situation and that the dissidents are acting separately, the fact is that he is very much in control and very much part of the command structure. They have reorganised dramatically and are better equipped than they were at the cessation of the spell of violence. It is important that the House has a proper assessment of what is going on.
	Reference has been made to democratic parties and I underline once again that I know only one member of the four-person commission personally. I accept that the others have had experience in different places. One member has had much experience with missing marks on extradition papers in the past, which meant that people were not extradited to face charges in British courts. The Justice Department in the south was certainly adept at turning down claims for extradition. I recognise that one member has been involved in anti-terrorism in this country, and I hope that he will use that expertise to penetrate the terrorists' webs. One member comes from the CIA, but at times its intelligence has not always been accurate and many of our American friends have not always been happy with its actions.
	I ask bluntly how we can expect the IMC to improve a situation that has not been dealt with in the past. It is time that the excuses for inaction were removed, and time for the Government to act. An old friend, Michael Armstrong, who was tragically killed in a car accident, used to speak about those within Northern Ireland who worked with an outside Government to undermine Northern Ireland's place as part of the United Kingdom. He used to compare them to the Sudeten Deutsch, and their existence has been confirmed in this House.
	It appears that this House has surrendered a degree of sovereignty in Northern Ireland, over and above the sovereignty that we have all surrendered within the European Union. Anyone who says that they do not have a say in strand 1 is perhaps protesting too much. Some say, in Shakespeare's term, that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
	We have had an interesting development in our prison services, although some of us feel that we have seen it all before. The phrase is now separation, not segregation, but I have yet to discover the difference between the two. I understand the problem, but I also understand the problems that prison officers will face in seeking to implement that decision, which was recommended by an independent body.
	I ask the Government, in these serious times, to recognise the greater understanding of those of us who work on the ground. In the Roman Catholic community and in the Protestant community, many fear that we have created mafiosi who work together when that is convenient and seek to dominate communities by force of terror. They do not deserve to be recognised as bona fide politicians. I have no difficulty in accepting that some members of Sinn Fein have not been involved in terrorism, but the organisation is led by people who are still leaders in the army council. As someone once said, between the Dail Eireann, Stormont and Westminster, at least half of the army council are elected Members. It is in that context that we have no good reason to adopt this course. We should ask the Prime Minister to implement fully the commitments given at Balmoral and other places and deal with the terrorism in our community.

Nigel Dodds: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that the Bill is unnecessary and avoids the main issue. It does not deal with the fundamental problem that currently exists in Northern Ireland in terms of the political process and the Belfast agreement. It was the avoidance of the fundamental problem that led to the cancellation of the elections.
	The fundamental problem with the Belfast agreement is that while its premise is that it has the support of both communities, Unionist and nationalist, and that that was the basis on which the Assembly was set up and operated, it is now clearexcept to those who refuse to admit it or who base their views on opinion polls that they distort to try to get a different resultthat the clear majority of Unionists no longer, if they ever did, support the Belfast agreement. A clear majority of nationalists may support itand why not, because it delivers the nationalist agendabut the vast majority of Unionists want a new agreement. They are against the Belfast agreement, but they are for an agreement to which they can sign up. As long as the Government and parties from Northern Ireland in this House ignore that reality, we will not deal with the fundamental issue or be able to move on to create political stability. It is to that end that my parliamentary colleagues and I are committed.
	It is vital that we have an election that will show once and for all exactly who represents whom in Northern Ireland. The Bill is supposed to pave the way for the elections, but it is clear from recent remarks by the Secretary of State, and from the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, that they want an election only if it will produce a certain result. They want an election only if it will mean that an Executive can be formed that will include IRA-Sinn Fein. Interestingly, the Irish Prime Minister repudiated that position in the Irish general election. He made it clear that under no circumstances would his party, or other parties in the Irish Republic, contemplate IRA-Sinn Fein taking part in their Government. Yet the Irish Prime Minister demands that that should happen in Northern Ireland and that the election should not take place until such an outcome is guaranteed.
	The people of Northern Ireland should be given a free choice in free elections, but the Government want to deny people a voice. They deny the people a voice in a European referendum and in Northern Ireland. What are the Government afraid of? They should let the people speak on this and other issues.
	The Bill shows that it is not difficult to change the Belfast agreement, when that is desired. Those of us who share the majority view of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland are frequently lectured that the Belfast agreement cannot be altered. We are told that it is the only show in town and there is no alternative. It must be preserved and upheld in all circumstances. However, the Bill makes it clear that the Belfast agreement is being changedand it will happen again in a few weeks' time, with legislation on the on-the-run issue. No one should therefore argue that our position has no credibility. In fact, when the circumstances require it, the Government and the pro-agreement parties have no difficulty changing the agreement if they think that it will help their political positions or for the sake of expediency.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the background to the Bill. The passage of time means that it is difficult to recall the events of October last year, and of the weeks and months leading up to them. People felt strongly about the activities of the IRA and what they had been exposed
	It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time) Motion and consideration of any Lords Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before resuming the Second Reading debate, I must advise the House that an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment to the Local Government Bill, to which this House disagreed, has been received from the Lords. It will be considered at the conclusion of all proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill. Copies of the Lords amendment are available in the Vote Office.
	Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Nigel Dodds: It looks as though it will be a very long night indeed.
	I was casting my mind back to the events of last October. The Castlereagh break-in happened on St. Patrick's day 2002. The facts about Colombia were emerging, as were revelations about high-level IRA involvement in the Florida gun-running plan, which involved the importation of arms. The Stormontgate affair was also taking place. All those contributed to a strong feeling that the IRA could not be part of the Northern Ireland Government as long as it retained its capacity and eagerness to carry out such activities. The IRA caused riots and mayhem on the streets of Northern Ireland over that summer, and engaged in all sorts of other nefarious activities.
	The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland and told us in a famous speech that a fork in the road had been reached. He said that the pressure was on the IRA to make up its mind. People waited to see what would happen.
	It was not long before a process of negotiation and discussion began with IRA-Sinn Fein and other political parties. We had been told that there would be no more inch-by-inch discussions, but just such discussions began in an attempt to resolve the problems. The talks at Hillsborough and elsewhere resulted in the publication of the joint declaration and the attached documents dealing with on-the-runs and with the monitoring of paramilitary activitythe matter that is now before the House.
	The crisis that brought about the fall of the Assembly was clearly the responsibility of the IRA but has led to a package of measures that is a litany of concessions to IRA-Sinn Fein. It covers some of the IRA's most cherished demandsthat on-the-runs should not be pursued, and that border security installations be dismantled, even though mainstream and dissident activity is continuing.
	Another demand concerned the future devolution of policing and justice powers. Such powers could have meant that Mr. Kellythe Assembly Member representing the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this Housecould become the Minister with responsibility for justice and policing. He said on television the other night that he was going to Letterkenny to participate in the jamboree celebrating the breakout by Maze escapees that resulted in the death of a prison officer. Mr. Kelly said that he was proud to have been part of that.
	The feeling in the Unionist community can be imagined. I know that some hon. Members in other parties take time to visit Northern Ireland and talk to people. They know what is going on, but many others will troop through the Lobby tonight to vote for this Bill who do not understand the situation at all. They do not take the time to listen to people, especially in my community, to find out the strength of feeling on these matters. If they did, they would understand the community's anger and frustration at a joint declaration that is no more than a list of concessions to IRA-Sinn Fein.
	IRA-Sinn Fein representatives have boasted about their participation in the Maze breakout. They have been involved in the intimidation of independent members of district policing partnerships. They voice mealy-mouthed apologies and explanations in respect of the disappeared, andas the Chief Constable and others have notedthey are still involved in murder. How can we even contemplate a scenario that is intended to allow IRA-Sinn Fein back into government?
	The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) described how some republican movement representatives had been glorified. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rightly chastised sections of the media for that. However, what could confer more glory on such people than to bring them into the Government of Northern Ireland, or to try to bring about conditions under which they would once again be inserted into the Government of part of the UK? People in Northern Ireland cannot understand how hon. Members can say in this House that they are sickened at the glorification of Sinn Fein-IRA when those same hon. Members have pandered to the IRA agenda, released all IRA prisoners and destroyed the RUC at the IRA's behest. Those people have worked with IRA-Sinn Fein in government. They have put their representatives into the Government of Northern Ireland, and now they want to put them back there yet again. The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.
	We are told that there is a need for action to be taken. I shall not rehearse the arguments about why the Government do not need this Bill if they want to act. The Government could have acted on many occasions in the past, but they refused to do so. The Social Democratic and Labour party could have taken action on many occasions in the past, but its members sat on their hands.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is not in his place. He berated the Government for their failings, but how many times have Ulster Unionist Members tabled motions to exclude Sinn Fein-IRA for ceasefire breaches and for not being committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted some of what has gone on, but he and his colleagues ran away from Stormont rather than vote against IRA-Sinn Fein.
	There is no need for the Bill. Action could have been taken, but was not. The Government still could act, but instead they have introduced this Bill. It will not work, and it is designed not to do so. Its procedures will be so cumbersome and lengthy that the Secretary of State's final decision on a complaint will take a very long time to produce. In that period, newspaper editorials and various pundits will urge people not to rock the boat. They will say that people are working together, and they will ask whether the price of excluding Sinn Fein is worth tearing down the edifice of the agreement.
	We need a means for the Government to act swiftly and efficiently as soon as a complaint is brought to light, but I fear that the IMC is being established for the purpose of delaying action and distracting attention whenever the republican movement is in clear breach of its obligations.
	I hope that the Minister of State, when she sums up, will deal with the past acts that have been mentionedColombia, Castlereagh, Stormontgate and so on. It would be useful to know whether the IMC will consider the outcome of those events, some of which have yet to be divulged by the relevant courts.
	Article 4(b)(i) of the agreement between the Governments deals with the functions of the IMC and is very significant. It says that, in dealing with breaches by paramilitaries of their obligations in relation to criminal activities and all sorts of terrorism, the IMC is to assess whether the leaderships of organisations are directing incidents or seeking to prevent them. That is a significant get-out clause for Sinn Fein-IRA. They will argue, as they have in the past, that they are not the IRA and cannot be held responsible for the actions of the IRA.
	When pressed, the IRA will make it clear that the actions in which it is alleged to have been involved and which may constitute a breach of its obligations were not authorised and were carried out by mavericks and local brigades. It will say that the actions were not authorised at high level and that it is working to try to stop those actions. It is written into the text of the agreement between the two Governments that the IMC has to have regard to that. That is a serious loophole and a get-out clause for Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Over the past few days, the Chief Constable has made it clear that not just dissidents but mainstream Provisional IRA members were involved in intimidation and threats against independent members of district policing partnerships, and that is deplorable. Martin McGuinness came straight out to say, That was not authorised and we are opposed to it. That is a classic example of what the IMC will facean allegation made by the Chief Constable that clearly sets out the position versus a denial by Sinn Fein that it was involved in any way and a claim that it was trying to prevent it. We know what the outcome will be.
	I fear that article 13(2)(iii) of the draft agreement between the two Governments could also open a major loophole in the provisions designed to deal with IRA-Sinn Fein. The article states:
	The Commission shall not do anything in carrying out its functions which might . . . have a prejudicial effect on any proceedings which have, or are likely to be, commenced in a court of law.
	One can well imagine that if, for example, a Castlereagh, Colombia, Florida or Stormontgate were to happen in future, any such incident would be likely to result, as those did, in legal proceedings. Are we to say that in such cases the commission shall not do anything that might have a prejudicial effect? That will seriously restrict the IMC in dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA, and that point must be clarified.
	Other Members have dealt with the equation of political breaches with breaches by paramilitaries, so I shall not dwell on that, except to note that a number of speakers have made it clear that it is neither desirable nor acceptable. I hope that the Government will consider our amendments and reflect on the fact that attempting equality, for the sake of balance, between those of us who take a principled political stance and those who carry out terrorism and murder and undertake criminal activity, by meting out the same sort of discipline, is neither fair nor democratic.
	When I intervened on the Secretary of State on clause 8, his answer was not clear. He did not seem to understand that clause 8 places restrictions that will make it harder for the Assembly to debate and vote on a motion of censure. Surely anything that restricts the right of the Assembly to deal with a vote of no confidence or of censure against a Minister or party in government is to be deplored. There is no logical reason for the clause being in the Bill, except to try to restrict opportunities for those of us who have tabled such motions in the past to highlight the glaring hypocrisy of Sinn Fein-IRA. The clause was not foreshadowed in the Belfast agreement or the joint declaration. I should be grateful for an explanation of where it has come from.
	Clause 1(1)(b) deals with the IMC's role in monitoring so-called normalisation, which means the dismantling of security in Northern Ireland in order to address Sinn Fein-IRA's political agenda. A detailed timetable is set out on three pages of the joint declaration, giving a detailed list of exactly how much the Government have to do in tearing down security along the border and at other installations throughout the Province, leaving many people defenceless on both sides of the community at a time when dissident and mainstream republicans are very active, and when loyalist groups are active too.
	It will be easy for the IMC to monitor that against the timetable, yet there is nothing on the paramilitary side but vagueness and aspirational talk. There is no detail and no timetable for the dismantling of the IRA. It will all be done in a cloak and dagger way. There is no provision to force the international decommissioning body to be upfront and public about acts of decommissioning. We shall have a charade in which so-called acts of decommissioning happen but no one knows what they are because the IRA has asked General de Chastelain not to reveal the detail. How very considerate of the general to accept what the IRA says. Whereas the dismantling of security will be all too visible and people will see security towers torn down and demolished and their security taken from them, anything that the IRA does is to be done in secret. That is totally unacceptable.
	Other hon. Members have dealt with Dublin's involvement and the breach of sovereignty that the Bill constitutes, so I shall not go into detail on that.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann promised us that monitoring and sanctions would provide a guarantee and build confidence among the Unionist community. He said that they would provide an opportunity to call to account those who breached their obligations on the paramilitary side of things. It is clear that they will do none of those things. They will provide no confidence for the Unionist community and will simply be a mechanism allowing the re-forming of an Executive of which IRA-Sinn Fein will be part and parcel. We are told that there will be the means to get them out, but the many people for whom I and other Members speak believe that Sinn Fein-IRA should not be admitted to the Government of Northern Ireland in the first place. It is time to stop allowing those people in and then saying that we are putting them to the test or trying to get them out. Every time we do that, it gets harder and harder.
	Government should be for democrats. It is clear that the IRA still exists and is still wedded to the use of violence. Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked and there should be no question of allowing them back into the Government of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Right hon. and hon. Members have touched on the background to the legislation and the reason why the Government have brought this Bill before the House. In numerous debates in the five years since the Belfast agreement, I have warned that the provisions that were being enacted by this House would be futile, would not work and would not succeed in moving the republican movement towards a commitment to exclusively peaceful meansthat they would not be successful in dealing with the problems in what has become known as the peace process.
	I must issue the same warning this evening. I do not believe that this legislation will deal with or resolve the problems that face the political process in Northern Ireland. It is merely a cover for trying to cobble together another deal that will be flawed and inadequate and that will fail. The legislation will fail because it does not go to the heart of the problem that has confronted the process since 1994 and the first IRA ceasefire. That is how long we have been engaged in this processalmost 10 years.
	Some people argue that we are further forward. I have heard it said tonight that Northern Ireland is a safer place today than it was before the agreement. That is true if one is a police officer. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is the first in recent memory to have completed his first year in office without having had to bury a member of that serviceformerly, the Royal Ulster Constabularyas a result of terrorist activity. As someone whose family has seen two members serving with the RUC murdered in what became known as the troubles, I welcome that. However, Northern Ireland today is not an entirely safe or peaceful society. For many people living in Northern Ireland, the peace process has not brought the peace and stability that we all want.

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that figures released by the Northern Ireland Office in the past few months show that, in the past five years, the number of shootings and the number of bombs and bombs defused have increased compared with the number in the five years before the agreement? While he rightly says that the number of deaths has decreased, other violence has increased.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which was the next part of my speech so I will not repeat it, save to say that he illustrates well that we can play around with statistics but, for people in Northern Ireland, the violence, threats, intimidation and paramilitary terrorist activity continue to be a reality of life. I will not rest until every citizen in Northern Ireland is liberated from that fear and from the consequences of paramilitary activity and violence. Right hon. and hon. Members will join me in seeking to achieve those objectives. I fear that where we differ is on how we are to achieve that.
	We are here tonight because of a number of events, which other hon. Members have mentioned, including IRA gun running from Floridaimporting new weapons when they were supposed to be getting rid of all of their weaponsand the involvement of three republican IRA members in training the FARC guerrilla organisation in Colombia in the use of technology that it has since used to devastating effect there. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has just returned from Colombia. FARC guerrillas have been using mortar devices similar to those utilised, and indeed developed, by the Provisional IRA, that have resulted in the deaths of many innocent people in that country.
	Castlereagh was another such incidentperhaps the most serious breach of security in the past 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland. We are still dealing with the consequences. Police officers have had to move home with their families because of it. Moving those families and the additional security measures required have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Then there was Stormontgate. Every week in my office, I deal with prison officers and their families who are struggling to get security measures implemented at their homes because their personal details were compromised when the IRA procured personnel information illegally from the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Hundreds of prison officers have been affected, again at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer.
	That money could have been much better spent in Northern Ireland on our hospitals and schools. Sinn Fein-IRA spokespersons lecture us on the need to invest more money on this, that and everythingnew schools, hospitals, roads and housingand yet the money that could have been spent on those projects is being spent to protect prison officers, police officers, soldiers, politicians and civil servants because of IRA activities. So, we are here tonight to deal with the consequences of those problemsdealing with the failures of the Belfast agreement.
	The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made a significant contribution to the debate. There was much in what he said, but I shall focus on one aspect of his speech because it has serious consequences for the operation of the independent monitoring commission and the implementation of the legislation that we may agree tonight in this House. He said that if a motion were tabled in the Assembly to exclude from ministerial office representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA, cross-community support was not forthcoming for the motion and the Secretary of State acted to exclude those Ministers, it would precipitate the collapse of the political institution. That is what he clearly implied tonightthat his party would withdraw its support in those circumstances.
	We heard much from the hon. Gentleman about the activities of the republican movement. He spoke about that in laudable terms. Yet the reality is that we need this legislation because of the failure of the Social Democratic and Labour party to support any motion in the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein, even though he accepts that its activities meant that it could no longer remain in office. Many on the Opposition Benches are astounded that he can make those comments and yet his party failed to support the exclusion of representatives of the republican movement in those circumstances.
	The legislation flows from the joint declaration. It contains many proposals, but it is the basis for a possible deal to enable elections to proceed and for the Assembly and Executive to be restored. Indeed, some hon. Members have mentioned this evening that a process is in train that will result in that deal coming to fruition in the next few weeks, provided that Sinn Fein-IRA delivers another gesture on decommissioning and perhaps a statement from the IRA army council. That will result in electionsperhaps, in Novemberand the possible restoration of the devolved institution.
	The proposals contained in the joint declaration and the legislation before the House are not adequate to deal with the problems in the peace process and the political process in Northern Ireland. The legislation deals with the role and remit of the monitoring commission and the sanctions that will be applied against parties and individual Members of the Assembly. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) was right to highlight the distinction in the ways that normalisation issues are to be tackled, with timetables and clear benchmarks for the British Governmentour Governmentto implement their commitment to reduce the security presence in Northern Ireland, but a complete lack of any timetable for decommissioning or disbandment of paramilitary terrorist organisations. There are no benchmarks whereby the commission can judge whether those organisations are making progress. We can only conclude that there is little prospect of the commission working effectively to monitor the activities of the paramilitary organisations.
	We object to the Irish Government being involved in security normalisation in Northern Irelanda matter that should be exclusively for Her Majesty's Government. It is solely the responsibility of the Government to protect their citizens and I can see no role for the Irish Government in deciding what security I, my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues from Northern Ireland require against the continuing terrorist threat. Nor should the Irish Government have any involvement in monitoring the activities of parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	I disagree entirely with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in his assessment of the Irish Government's role in this legislation. He referred to the talks process, saying that it offered precedents for the Irish Government's role in such matters. I disagree. No independent commission was required during the talks process to decide whether the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association or the Ulster Volunteer Force were in breach of their ceasefires or that parties linked to those organisations were failing to make a commitment to peaceful means. That decision was made by the political parties and by the Government.
	It is true that, because the Irish Government participated in the talks process, they were consulted about that decision, but that is entirely different from dealing with the strand 1 institutional arrangements that flow from the agreement. We were told that the Irish Government would have no role in strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. Indeed, it was a requirement that strand 1 be hermetically sealed so that the Irish Government could have no say, yet it is crystal clear from the draft agreement between the Governments of the UK and the Irish Republic that establishes the independent monitoring commission that the Irish Government will have a role in strand 1.
	Article 6 of the agreement between the two Governments states that the commissionthe whole commission, all four members, including the Irish Government's representative
	may consider a claim by any party represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	That could not be clearer. The commission may consider a claim by a party represented in the Assembly; that is covered by strand 1 of the agreement.
	There are two further aspects. One deals with whether a Minister or a party
	is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
	That is still a strand 1 issue, because the question of whether a Minister is thus committed is dealt with in the pledge of office in annexe A of strand 1. That pledge requires a Minister to be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The Irish Government are, therefore, involved in judging whether a Minister or party in the Northern Ireland Assembly is committed to exclusively peaceful means. In anyone's terms, that is a breach of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. For the first time, it gives the Irish Government a say in the internal affairs of the Assembly. That cannot be denied, so there is no point in trying to paper over the cracks or pretend that it is something else.
	I echo the comments of Lord Kilclooney, who said:
	So there still remains this proviso that Her Majesty's Government are not sovereign on this issue. But the legislation will proceed through this Parliament, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, only after consultation with the Irish Government. To that extent the Irish Government remain involved in strand 1 of the Belfast agreement of 1998. Therefore, this is a clear breach of the agreement.[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 593.]
	He is right. Unionists will have to consider that point carefully. It has been a key Unionist principle that the Irish Government should not be involved in strand 1, in internal matters relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is why my hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to remove both the Irish Government representative and the American Government representative from the commission and to provide that the commission shall comprise only representatives from the United Kingdom appointed by the UK Government. Any ambiguity would thus be removed; there would be no question of the Irish Government interfering in matters that are internal to the United Kingdom and to Northern Ireland as part of it.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North also referred to the clause that deals with the commission's duty to avoid prejudicial effects. That is crucial. It goes to the heart of the commission's effectiveness in dealing with possible breaches of the agreement and of the pledge of office.
	Based on the Government's past performance, I have great difficulty in understanding how they will be able to decide whether a Minister is in breach of the pledge of office. Will the Minister have to be personally involved in terrorist activity to be deemed to have broken the pledge of office? The Secretary of State must address that question, because Sinn Fein will merely repeat what it has often saidWe are not the IRA. Martin McGuinness, or whoever may be in ministerial office, will simply say that it was, or was not, the IRA but, You can't blame me, I am not the IRA.
	To this day, Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, denies that he has ever been a member of the IRA. If he were holding ministerial office, how would the Secretary of State prove that he had broken the pledge of office because the IRA had been engaged in terrorist activity? The issue is important, because I have no doubt that republicans will go to the High Courtas they have done in the pastand challenge decisions or recommendations of the commission or the Secretary of State related to their holding ministerial office. They will mount legal challenges, so the Government must be sure of the grounds on which they are proceeding.
	The Government may argue, rightly, that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked, but I am not sure that the legislation will be tight enough to ensure that an individual Minister could be firmly pinned down on whether they have broken their pledge of office because of their IRA activity. One could also apply the argument to Sinn Fein-IRA as a political party acting in the Assembly, especially if the commission's activities and investigatory powers were circumscribed by its inability to investigate a matter that could result in legal proceedings.
	As the hon. Member for Belfast, North rightly pointed out, there are legal proceedings in respect of each of the four breaches that I mentioned earlierFlorida, Colombia, Castlereagh and Stormontgate. So will the commission be unable to investigate such matters? If so, what is the point of the Bill? What is the point of the commission in the first place? In those circumstances, we would be back to where we are today, with a Government who are either unwilling or unable to take action to deal with a political party that is inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation that continues to engage in terrorist activities while being in the Government of Northern Ireland.
	I am afraid that the sanctions themselves are weak. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier, the Government are trying to apply a lesser form of sanction initially in the hope that that will buy some time if there is a problem, and they will then gradually ratchet up the pressure until we may eventually get a motion to exclude a Minister or a junior Minister from the Executive.
	Sinn Fein-IRA will not be at all impressed by the prospect of a censure motion in the Assembly, a reduction in their pay or the removal of financial support in the Assembly. The republican movement does not rely on the financial support that it receives in the Assembly to finance its operations. We have ample evidence that it is making a lot of money in all kinds of other activitiessome lawful, some not so lawfulso it will not be too bothered by the prospect of financial sanctions being applied.
	What really matters is the principle of whether it is right for someone who is linked to a paramilitary terrorist organisation to be in the Governmentnone of the other sanctions matters; the issue is one of principle. Is it right for someone who is linked to a party that is part of a terrorist organisation that engages in terrorist activities to be in the Governmentyes or no? If it is wrong, that party should be excluded from the Government. Indeed, is that not what the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland when he wrote those handwritten pledges on the wall in Coleraine during the referendum campaign? He pledged:
	Those who use or threaten violence excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland.
	There was no mention of censure motions or reductions in pay. The pledge was very clear, but it remains to be delivered to the people of Northern Ireland.
	There are very real problems with the legislation. It is flawed. It is inadequate to deal with the current problems that we face in the political process in Northern Ireland. Moreover, although the proposed sanctions relate to political parties, no sanction is proposed in the legislation against a terrorist organisation. Hon. Members may say that the rule of law deals with terrorist organisations. If they breach their ceasefires or engage in illegal activity, it is a matter for the process of law and for police investigation, and so on. That may be so, but what about proscription, which is still on the statute book? Why is that not being considered as a possible sanction? If the Government believe that a political party linked to a terrorist organisation is not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, does that not raise a question in relation to whether that political party is a bona fide democratic party?
	How will the Secretary of State form his opinion? What evidence will he require to judge whether a person who is a Minister or a junior Minister is in breach of the commitment to democratic and peaceful means? I should like to know the answer to those questions. Will the Secretary of State simply rely on the investigations of an independent commission? Will he still take the advice of the Chief Constable, the General Officer Commanding and the intelligence agencies? That is important.
	The Government do not tell us what the security forces' role will be in influencing the process and the judgments made by the Secretary of State about whether a party or a Minister is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I certainly hope that the commission will not replace the Chief Constable and the security services in providing intelligence and that its investigatory role will not replace the intelligence gathering capacity of the police and the security services in informing the Government in making their judgments on those crucial political issues.
	We have heard about consultation with the Irish Government. I shall not dwell on that issueother hon. Members have dealt with it adequatelybut it is a concern for us because we have little doubt, given the Irish Government's past performance, that they will be continue to be the dead hand when it comes to taking action against the republican movement. Their past resolve to deal with republican breaches has been less than satisfactory.
	The reality is that the legislation is so ambiguous on crucial matters that are important to political progress in Northern Ireland andas the hon. Member for Belfast, North saidthat the process of monitoring is so convoluted, cumbersome, imprecise and ineffective that there is little prospect of real and meaningful sanctions ever being applied against the political parties that are linked to the paramilitary terrorist organisations.
	The commission's objective may be to rebuild confidence in Northern Ireland. The real pollsthe electionsand the opinion polls show that, where confidence has dropped, it has happened almost exclusively in the Unionist community. The most recent opinion poll indicated that, if a referendum on the agreement were held tomorrow, 70 per cent. of Unionists would vote no. If the Government's objective is to address the loss of confidence in the process that has occurred in Unionism, I have to say, as a representative of Unionism, that the legislation will not achieve that objective.
	Indeed, my two colleaguesmy hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, South and for South Antrim (David Burnside)and I felt so strongly about those issues that we resigned the Whip of the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party, so that we could vote against the Bill tonight. It is flawed, and I believe that, in time, it will prove inadequate and ineffective in dealing with the problems that we face and that we will have to return to the House to find another more effective way to deal with those issues.

David Burnside: It is with great regret that I rise, as an Ulster Unionist from the Unionist Bench, at a time when the Unionist cause is once again dogged and damaged, as it has been for so long, with divisions in my own partythe Ulster Unionist partyand without a co-ordinated policy and strategy. Different views have been expressed tonight from right across the Unionist family, and the Ulster Unionist cause continues to be damaged in the House and the nation. That damages us in establishing accountable, democratic government in Northern Ireland.
	We are still dealing with the problem which historically united Unionism back in 1985: opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which was supported by Margaret Thatcher, to her shame, even though she was a very great lady in her time. We are still suffering from that joint authority, even though the 1998 Belfast agreement promised to replace the Anglo-Irish secretariat. Well, the secretariat moved from Maryfield to another headquarters, but the continuing involvement and role of the Irish Republic in our affairs does not help accountable government in Northern Ireland.
	I wish to refer to the amendment, which is in the first group for consideration in Committee, and to the new clause on proscription tabled in my name, which will not be debated this evening. Perhaps you will correct me if I cannot refer to them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment and the new clause are fundamentally important to expressing the Unionists' concerns about the proposed legislation.
	The hangover of the Irish Republic's involvement is not all malign, against the interests of democracy or against the desire of the majority of people in the Republic of Ireland to have a better, stable relationship with their neighbours in Northern Ireland. But the Republic's involvementas Her Majesty's Government allow its Government a constant say, consultation and involvement in our internal affairshas created in the past, creates in the present and will create in the future opposition from the Unionist community. The amendment refers to the make-up of the commission, and was tabled deliberately on the basis that the commission should include only representatives from the United Kingdom, including one from Northern Ireland. Let us have help and co-operation, but there is no need to have a representative from the Irish Republic or a representative from our ally and neighbour in the United States. Let us co-operate with them in the normal diplomatic manner.
	The new clause that I tabled with the support of both Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist Members lays out the final penalty for a so-called democratic party with a mandate, Sinn Fein. Yes, it has a mandate, but I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) who recently referred to expulsion from the Executive as the nuclear option. The nuclear deterrent should be proscription of that political party on the ground that it is not operating as a normal democratic party. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany established after the second world war would not have allowed the activities of Sinn Fein. In my opinion, the activities of Sinn Fein would not be tolerated within our European neighbour Spain at present.
	It is intolerable that this so-called political party with a mandate continues to operate the dirty double game that the republican movement has pursued since 1998. We know what the problem is: we were told and we hoped that it was on the road from terrorism to democracy, which is possible, admirable and should be encouraged. But we have suffered by not having sanction against it, and it is continuing to play the dirty double game. It has not changed, and I believe that we have problems in the Government of Northern Ireland at present. I do not believe that we have a crisisalthough I would be worried about ever saying in the House that there was no crisis, as I will always remember Jim Callaghan's dreadful remark when he came back with a suntan from the Caribbean in 1979, which resulted in the defeat of Labour and the Tories' coming to power after the winter of discontent. We have a number of problems that can be dealt with in Northern Ireland, but they are not dealt with by the legislation proposed tonight. I will not go over again the issues of Colombia, Florida, Castlereagh and Stormontgate, to which many right hon. and hon. Members have already referred. I referred earlier in an intervention to the murder, which the police believe was carried out by the Provisional IRA, of Gareth O'Connor, and the Secretary of State and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are well aware of the circumstances of that. With Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams sitting on the army council of the IRA, should that offence of murder lead to Martin McGuinness being expelled from the Executive? In my opinion, it should lead to the proscription of Sinn Fein as a political party until it starts to behave decently and democratically and to co-operate with its neighbours in Northern Ireland, the Unionist majority.

Seamus Mallon: I am very aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which is within my constituency. It would be helpful to the House, and certainly to me, if he could show where the Police Service of Northern Ireland made that statement or indicated in any way that that was the case. It would be very helpful for many people such as myself who have been trying to resolve that matter. It is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to put it on the record now.

David Burnside: Informed sources within Northern Ireland[Interruption] I will answer the intervention. Those sources have said that the Provisional IRAno dissident grouphave been involved. I quote from Kevin Myers, a respected journalist, who was published at the weekend and who had the courage to stand up and look at the reality of Sinn Fein. He referred to the murder of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, saying:
	No one in the three governments participating in the peace process ever announces the Shinners must stay within the law.
	That is the view from a southern journalist, writing in what is admittedly a mainland Sunday newspaper. He has been highly critical of the outpouring of the peace process in Northern Ireland that has allowed criminality, including murder, to take place.

Seamus Mallon: I have here the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, by the journalist to whom he refers. But that was not the question I asked. My question was whether, to be helpful to everybody, not least the family of the young man who was killed, he could put that information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the record now. I am not asking for him to name Kevin Myers, any journalist or any informed source, but the PSNI source. That is crucial.

David Burnside: It is my information within the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and I would be pleased to ask the Ministeror if she cannot respond, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Irelandto make a statement on the subject. It is my information that the murder has been carried out by the Provisional IRA and that no other form of investigation is being carried out within the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman refers to confusion, which is buck passing, and it is exactly the same as the false information that came out when we were told that Castlereagh was an inside job by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the special branch in Northern Ireland. We all now know that there is only one line of investigation into that break-ininto mainstream republican Provisional IRA within Northern Ireland.

Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burnside: No, I have given way twice.
	I will vote against Second Reading this evening because the legislation is part of the overall declaration, which does not have the consent or the support of the Unionist population. It is not a basis for the way ahead. We are dealing with the problem that we have been dealing with since 1998, which is that, time and again, republicans are let off and not punished for continuing to play the double game of terrorism and masquerading as a democratic political party.
	There has been much talk this evening about whether we are going to have an election in Northern Ireland. I am a selected candidate in South Antrim for the Ulster Unionist party and I look forward to an election whenever it is called. I think that it is a major mistake to postpone it. But many questions have to be answered if and when there is an election. How will the Executive be formed, and can the Unionist population have the confidence that this Bill has any chance of expelling Sinn Fein from the Executive for the type of activities in which it has been involved in Colombia, Florida, Castlereagh and Stormontgatethere are enough instances of which the Northern Ireland Office is aware. If my party, the Ulster Unionist party, goes into an election on a manifesto to rejoin this inclusive Executive, including Sinn Fein, I have no confidence that the legislation before the House tonight will exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. So we will come back to the House again. If that is the sequence of events that unfolds in the next few weeks and months, the Unionist population and electorate will give one clear message: the fudge and double standards are continuing because Her Majesty's Government have refused to stand up to Sinn Fein-IRA. That is why the Unionist population have lost confidence in the agreement and its implementation. I would love to be able to support this measure as a new way forward in dealing with the problems that were ambiguous in 1998 and to which solutions were not delivered by the Prime Minister's promises at that time. I do not believe that they will be delivered here tonight.
	If Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are backing, under this institutional arrangement of the agreement, an Executive who have bureaucratic, slow, complicated and ambiguous legislation, does anyone think that they fear being thrown out of the Northern Ireland Executive? I do not question the credentials of the four gentlemen proposed for the commission, but does anyone think that it will recommend the expulsion of Sinn Fein from the Executive, or that the Secretary of State will expel it? No way. To think that is to live in a dream world. This is another fudge, and I will vote against it on principle on Second Reading, just as I will vote against any other legislation linked to the joint declaration, such as that dealing with the on-the-runs, which I believe has already been promised to Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein and which may be brought before the House in November in an attempt to get the election on its way.
	This is another bad night for Unionism. We have another fudge from the Government. Yet again, they are refusing to stand up to Sinn Fein-IRA.

Andrew Hunter: I empathise considerably with the hon. Members for South Antrim (David Burnside), for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in their present political predicament. I found myself somewhat distant from the Conservative party over the Belfast agreement and matters flowing from it. I substantially agree with what those three hon. Members have said.
	Because of the pressure of timewe have spent a long time on Second Readingand the fact that the salient features have been well and truly covered, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I shall keep my comments to the barest minimum.
	According to some media reports that I have heard and read, the provisional republican movement is unhappy about the proposed monitoring commission, fearing that it may lead to the exclusion of its leadership from political office. At first sight, that might therefore suggest that the proposed commission has some merit. The prospect of at last being able to exclude from political office those who have continually demonstrated that they are not exclusively committed to non-violence and democracy is an appealing prospect. However, as we have heard from many hon. Members, on closer observation, the proposed commission fails to inspire confidence. It will be ineffective for a variety of reasons; cumulatively, because it does not in itself contain the authority to exercise its own judgments and conclusions.
	The Government make much of the swift establishment of the monitoring commission as a key element in what their press release of 4 September says is intended to rebuild the
	trust and confidence necessary for the restoration of stable and inclusive devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	However laudable that objective may be, the Bill as it stands will not help to achieve it.
	We can be forgiven for having lost count of how many commissions have been created in recent years. There has been the Patten commission, the Parades Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and perhaps others. One can cynically wonder what rational grounds there are for thinking that this commission will fare any better than the others.
	The proposed IMC is fundamentally flawed for all the reasons that we have heard. I do not propose to enumerate them at any great length. The Irish dimension has been mentioned a great deal. There is no justification whatever for allowing this intrusion into what should be reserved as strand 1 matters.
	It is the Government's adherence to what they call demilitarisation, to be monitored alongside terrorist decommissioning, that disturbs me most. Let us be clear. This is not a confidence-building development; it is a confidence-destroying development. The draft agreement asserts parity between the legally constituted security forces of the state and weapons illegally held by illegal terrorist organisations. Such parity is totally unacceptable, politically irresponsible and, arguably, morally wrong because no such parity can or should exist. No wonder that some conclude that the commission appears designed to ensure the speedy reduction in security as promised to the IRA by the Government and apparently endorsed by the pro-agreement parties.
	Secondly, and significantly, the origins of the new body lie in the discovery of the IRA's spy operation at the heart of Stormont. Rather than dealing solely with Sinn Fein-IRA, as they should have done, the Government decided to suspend Stormont and punish every party for the wrongdoing of one. To compound matters, in the face of overwhelming evidence of continuing terrorist activity, the IRA was then rewarded with the joint declaration. This Bill compounds that injustice. Why should the Northern Ireland political parties that have no connection whatever with terrorist organisations but which, on the basis of their democratic mandate, declined to participate in a Government surrender to terrorism be subject to the same punitive regime as Sinn Fein-IRA? No comparison can or should be made between parties exclusively committed to the principles and practice of democracy and those that are a political front for unreconstructed terrorist organisations.
	Thirdly, there is nothing whatever in the draft agreementor, equally significantly, outside itto give any confidence at all that the Government might use the power to exclude parties in the event of a negative finding by the commission. Despite having had the power throughout the period of devolution to refer to the Assembly a motion for the expulsion of republicans, the Government never did so, regardless of the ongoing violence sanctioned and authorised by the Sinn Fein-IRA leadership. In the light of those developments, does anyone seriously believe that the Government, having started more than 10 years ago a process that sought to bring the republicans to the centre stage of Northern Ireland politics, will now in any circumstances take action to remove them from the Executive? I very much doubt it.
	The Government's actions over the past few years have themselves destroyed confidence in the process. Nor can Unionists take seriously the claim that this proposed commission will remove Sinn Fein from government when, before any action can be taken, the commission will have to report to a Northern Ireland Assembly in which there is an inherent nationalist right to veto.
	The creation of this commission can and will be no more successful in removing terrorists from government than the current so-called exclusion mechanisms. Quite frankly, it is now too late for the Government to restore confidence in a discredited process. The Bill will certainly not achieve that objective. Confidence can be restored only by elections followed by a fundamental renegotiation of the basis for agreement.

Quentin Davies: I think that it might be in the interest of the House, given the limited time that we have

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to wind up the debate, he will need the leave of the House.

Quentin Davies: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I think that it will be in the interest of the House if I forgo the right to wind up the debate. We have had a good, if predictable, debate. As the Secretary of State said, the Bill is complex and important. We unfortunately have limited time in which to do it justice, so I think that we should make progress without further ado.

Jane Kennedy: A number of points and questions have been put during the debate, so I cannot reciprocate the speed of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).
	I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) when he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will convey to his colleague the profound sympathy and condolences that I am sure that not only my hon. Friends and I, but hon. Members of all parties would wish to express. That is likely to be the only occasion this evening on which I shall achieve unanimity in the Chamber.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford will accept that my comments will be made affectionately, if not entirely respectfully. He entertained us by storming and raging at the inadequacies of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he evoked a college of cardinals, so great was the number of cardinal sins committed by Her Majesty's Government. However, his wisdom and perspicacity know no bounds. I ask him to consider the fact that I frequently think about his colleagues, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), and their time as security Ministers when thinking about some of the difficult issues that my colleagues and I have to consider, sometimes on a daily basis. It is not difficult to talk the talk of peacemakingwe often do that in the House. However, it is much more difficult to walk the walk, and I have learned the truth of that. It is difficult to engage with those for whom it is anathema to engage but we do so for the sake of those whose lives we are responsible for and to secure a peaceful and safe society. Sometimes our efforts are successful and sometimes they are less successful than we would want, but they are nonetheless sincere.
	I shall try to respond to several questions that were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend asked whether the monitoring commission may receive functions from the Bill, and a great amount of debate was caused by what I am sure he meant to be a helpful suggestion. The model that we have chosen will set up the commission by international agreement. Indeed, in the other place, my noble and learned Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn referred specifically to clause 1, which defines the agreement referred to. Amending that clause would not confer functions on the commission because of the way in which it is drafted. Of course, Parliament could confer functions on a commission in the UK if it wished but that is not the model that we are following. As I said, we have chosen to set up an international commission that will receive its functions through the agreement.

Seamus Mallon: The Minister is effectively answering a question that I did not ask. I gave the column number and date of the debate in which the Government Minister in the other place was talking not about article 1 but about article 4. That was specific in terms of the wording of his reply. The Minister should again clarify the situation accurately.

Jane Kennedy: I was referring to clause 1 of the Bill rather than article 1. I thought that I had answered my hon. Friend's question, but I shall read his comments carefully just as I have the comments of Lord Williams. I might need to clarify the point further as we approach the Committee stage.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way again, but the reality is that clause 1 does not refer to the functions in any way.

Jane Kennedy: That is precisely my point. Clearly, we shall not get to the bottom of this confusion and I shall need to re-read the Hansard report that we have received and examine the response that I have given to determine whether I can provide greater clarity. If necessary, I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library for the benefit of all hon. Members who have an interest in the issue.
	My hon. Friend asked about article 4 of the international agreement to establish the monitoring commission by querying whether the commission would be fettered in presenting reports to which organised crime was relevant. However, article 4 includes other criminal offences and the list of activities that it defines is not exhaustive. Organised crime is caught by article 4 of the agreement if it is carried out by paramilitaries. We know that there is significant involvement of paramilitary organisations in organised crime in Northern Ireland.

Seamus Mallon: rose

Jane Kennedy: I shall give way to my hon. Friend for a final time.

Seamus Mallon: The Minister is very kind. Will she confirm that in terms of investigations into organised crime, 14 files exist now, but not one refers to the provisional IRA or those associated with it? Will she put on record her confirmation that that information is correct?

Jane Kennedy: I am afraid that I cannot confirm that at the moment. I am not aware of the detail to which my hon. Friend referred, so I shall have to examine the matter again. Given that we are under time constraints, I shall try not to be provocative and I hope that there will be few occasions when hon. Members will feel goaded to ask for further clarification of my points.
	My hon. Friend and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is not in the Chamber, asked about the duty of office. I am not sure whether I understood fully the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, but I confirm that the pledge of office in the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a requirement to discharge in good faith all duties of office. I hope that that addresses his point but I am happy to respond to his worries further, perhaps after considering them more carefully.
	I hesitate to be provocative but every time I hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East speak, it occurs to me that he would do well to listen to a song called Paint It Black, which was written by some of my favourite musicians. He does not want colours anywhere and where there are colours, he wants them painted black. He describes a world that I simply do not see. The song is by the Rolling Stones and I invite him to listen to it if he would like to hear not only a good song, but something that describes the way in which we in the Chamber hear his outlook.
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) suggested that the Government equate normalisation and paramilitary activities but that is not the case. The timetable for security normalisation set out in the joint declaration was illustrative, and it was set out on the basis that appropriate acts of completion occurred at the time of its publication. Article 15 of the agreement makes it clear that the programme of security normalisation and the timetable associated with it will be determined once the British Government are satisfied that appropriate commitments have been given on an end to paramilitary activity.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about withholding the salaries of all members of a party and suggested that that might be likely to breach the European convention on human rights. I do not believe that that is the case. We do not believe that withholding, or reducing future income would be a breach of the European convention. However, European case law draws a distinction between rights to future salary that is not protected under the law and pension rights, which are protected under the law. That brings me to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) in a characteristically good-humoured contribution.

Lady Hermon: On the human rights point, I am intrigued by the fact that this Bill does not carry a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: It does.] I stand to be corrected. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it does not appear on the front page. If the Minister could deal with that, I would be grateful.

Jane Kennedy: It may not be on the front page but it is definitely in the Bill; perhaps it is on the back page.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, if I may call him that, raised the question of pensions. This is a complicated area. Whenever I engage in debate about the European convention on human rights, I do so hesitantly and I accept the charge of hesitancy that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) laid against us in this context. It may assist if I explain why the Government consider that new section 48(2A) is necessary.
	Pension contributions are assessed as a fixed percentage of a Member's salary and pension entitlement is calculated on the basis of a Member's final salary. That provision ensures that any reduction in salary will be disregarded for the purposes of the pension schemethat is, it will not affect a Member's rights or his obligations. For example, if salary is reduced by half, a member will remain liable for pension contributions calculated as a percentage of his full salary. Similarly, a 50 per cent. reduction in salary will not affect pension entitlement, which will still be based on full salary should a Member decide to stand down while the reduction is in place. [Interruption.] I sense that that has provoked a series of questions. I ask hon. Members to resist the urge to intervene.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry but I cannot resist it. Just for clarification, is the Minister saying that the pension contribution is calculated on the basis of the full salary even when that salary has been reducedin other words, that the reason that the final pension is consummate with the full salary is that the actual payments into the scheme do not alter with variation in the amount that the individual pays?

Jane Kennedy: The pensions of Members of the Legislative Assembly are contributory, so a Member's share in the pension fund is likely to be protected from interference under article 1 of the first protocol of the ECHR, the protection of property protocol. If a Member's salary was reduced and he retired while a reduction was in place, the value of his pension could be substantially reduced. Therefore, there is, we fear, a serious risk that that would breach the ECHR.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is right: the statement is not in the Bill. However, it is separately stated that the Bill is compliant.

Peter Robinson: Just to be accurate, it was in the original Bill that went to the House of Lords. It was not in the reprinted one.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked whether the commissioners can deliberate by correspondence. The commissioners' working methods will be a matter for them to determine. For myself, I can see no reason why they should not maintain contact by a range of methods. That may be particularly appropriate if a commissioner were sick but I imagine that they would also regularly deliberate in person. If a commissioner is incapacitated, it is open to the two Governments to replace him, although obviously I hope that that would not be the case.

Andrew MacKinlay: It seems to me that if the commissioners are to have any function at all, they have to be inquisitorial. While they may not hold full hearings, dare I say it, like a Select Committee, presumably, they would have to take evidence and to hear from people at some stage. Is the Minister saying that the rubrics of how they work have not yet been thought through? I find that surprising because it seems vital that that should be defined and understood.

Jane Kennedy: It is not that it has not been thought through. It is something that we are saying to the commissioners. We expect that they will wish to meet as a group not only to discuss and to deliberate on information that they have received but to meet those from whom they wish to receive information, so there is no impediment to that, but I expect that their working practices will evolve.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked what the cross-community voting requirements are. Although it is not in the Bill, it is in the explanatory notes on page 4. That may be of benefit to the whole House.
	A number of hon. Members raised the question of retrospectivity, particularly the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who raised it initially in an intervention and was supported by other hon. Members. The commission will be established by the agreement and we intend that its first report on paramilitary activity will for the most part cover matters since its establishment. The commission may wish to include in its first report some recent contextual material but I do not expect that it will spend its time looking backwards. That will not be the answer that he wanted but it is the only answer that he will get today.

David Burnside: It is not very satisfactory. I specifically asked about retrospectivity regarding four investigations, of which she will be aware with her ministerial responsibility, including Colombia, Castlereagh, Stormontgate. Those are investigations presently taking place. Will the commission have a remit with a view to making recommendations that could lead to the expulsion of Sinn Fein from the Executive? That is why the people of Northern Ireland are still confused over this debate tonight.

Jane Kennedy: I do not think that there is the degree of confusion that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I have made it clear that we would expect the commission to begin its work from the point at which it comes into existence. There will be when it comes into existence, I suspect, occasions when it may want to look at the context within which it has come into existence but I am not giving him any assurance that the four cases to which he has referred will be part of its considerations.
	The hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to

Quentin Davies: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would be kind enough to make an important point absolutely clear: she is not saying that the commission will indeed look at those four egregious breaches, but she equally, as I understand it, is not saying that it will not. She is going to leave it to the commission to decideis that right?the extent to which it looks retrospectively, the extent to which it looks forward and generally how it responds to any complaints or any incidents.

Jane Kennedy: Yes.
	I make it clear that my thoughts this weekend will be with the family of Prison Officer Ferris, who was stabbed at the time of the Maze escape, and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Belfast, North for raising his case. The hon. Member for Belfast, North also raised the question of elections. We are all working to create the conditions for an election to the Assembly from which a viable Executive can be formed. There has been no secret about that. We have never disguised that that is our objective. We want to put the government of Northern Ireland in the hands of locally accountable representatives and the IMC is a key element but just one part of that drive. Others have commitments to make, too: to rebuild the trust and confidence necessary to move forward to stable and inclusive institutions, and we all know what those commitments are.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North suggested that censure motions would be weaker as a result of the Bill. The Bill provides that the Assembly may resolve by cross-community vote to censure a Minister or a party on the basis that it does not believe that they are committed to non-violent, peaceful and democratic means or any of the other terms of the pledge of office. It remains open to the Assembly to pass motions censuring Ministers or parties on other grounds according to its own procedures. I do not see how in substance the Bill weakens the Assembly. In fact, it widens the range of measures available to it.

Nigel Dodds: rose

Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am seeking to make a little progress as I am conscious of the pressure of time.

Lembit �pik: rose

Jane Kennedy: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman a number of times so, if he will forgive me, on this occasion I will press on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) tempted me to respond to his comment about new Labour, but I will resist, as that is not within the confines of our debate, but perhaps I will discuss it with him later. However, he spoke about people who have been forced into exile and the need for acts of completion to include scope for them to return. He is quite right to raise that. The practice of exiling must come to an end, and the exiled must feel free to return in safety. That is a point that not only he but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have made on many occasions both in the House and Northern Ireland.
	My hon. Friend also questioned an issue raised by clause 2, and the need to avoid making reports that are prejudicial to criminal proceedings. Commissioners will obviously exercise discretion about the information that they wish to include in their reports, subject to the provisions of clause 2. While putting an independent spotlight on ongoing paramilitary activity, we must also ensure that any legal proceedings and, in particular, criminal proceedings are not jeopardised. We must not allow the commission to be seen to influence the outcome of criminal proceedings because that could cause the collapse of a case. That does not, however, prevent the IMC from giving an independent and accurate picture of the scale of ongoing paramilitary activity.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), in a well-argued and thoughtful speech, referred to a statement by the leader of Sinn Fein last April that represented progress on the part of the IRA, which we have acknowledged. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have said on a previous occasion, that that does not answer the Prime Minister's final, simple questionwill the IRA call a halt to all paramilitary activity? The hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship between the commission, Garda Siochana, the General Officer Commanding the Army in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable. The IMC will be open and accessible to all interested parties and will consult on issues relevant to its functions, as he would expect. However, the two Governments have made it clear that it should be provided with the information that it needs to do its job. It will have access to the Chief Constable, the General Officer Commanding and other agencies with law enforcement and security roles in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong to go into specifics, but I can confirm that the IMC will receive material drawn from intelligence. It will then be for the IMC to decide what to include in its reports, provided that it does not breach the duties under clause 2. As for costs, we estimate that those will be 2 million a year, and a contribution will be received from the Irish Government on a 50:50 basisI am happy to use that phrase in a context different from that which I normally use.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to recent decisions regarding prisons. He will forgive me for not being drawn down that path in this debate, but I appreciate his comments and anxieties about prison officers. I share his concerns, but they are not often raised in our discussions of security matters in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and other hon. Members asked about the IMC's determination of cases referring to strand 1 questions. In view of the convention regarding the operation of the internal political institutions of Northern Ireland, it would be inappropriate for non-UK nationals to have a role in investigating and reporting on allegations concerning such matters. That is why, for complaints concerning the operation of internal political institutionsstrand 1 institutions the Irish and American members of the commission will stand aside.
	The key point is surely that, on matters relating to the operation of those institutions, the British members alone will examine the issues and report their conclusions. The whole commission will have a role in reporting its view, when asked to do so, on whether particular politicians are genuinely committed to peaceful and democratic means. That is a basic requirement of trust and confidenceit has nothing to do with the workings of the internal institutions.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Lady is mistaken in her interpretation. It is clear in clause 6 of the agreement between the British and Irish Governments that the full commission, including the Irish Government's representative, will be involved in considering complaints from parties in the Northern Ireland Assemblya strand 1 institutionin relation to the pledge of office, specifically the provision relating to the commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That is specified in annexe A of the Belfast agreementthe hon. Lady is wrong.

Jane Kennedy: We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I do not accept the premise from which the hon. Gentleman is arguing.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked whether members of Sinn Fein will escape charges that they have broken the pledge of office by saying that their party is not the same as the Provisional IRA. It is already the case under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that Assembly parties or Ministers may be excluded from office, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, if the Assembly concludes by cross-community vote that they are not considered to be committed to peaceful and democratic means. However, the international agreement establishing the IMC makes it clear that the commission may make recommendations about the steps that the Assembly could consider taking against Ministers or parties if it concludes that they are not committed to peaceful and democratic means. The nature and consequences of the links between a party and a paramilitary organisation will be for the IMC to establish and respond to. Members of the commission will have significant and relevant experience and are not likely to duck the issue.

David Burnside: rose

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him at this moment in time.
	Finally, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in a typically forceful speech, said that the IMC is being created so that Her Majesty's Government cannot turn a blind eyeI understand why he made that comment. He went on to talk about the huge element of trust that will be required. Confidence in the IMC will have to be established, and it will have to win the confidence and respect of the people of Northern Ireland if it is to assist with the process of restoring trust and confidencethat great project to which we are all committed. I very much agree with some of his comments about the nature of that trust and confidence which, indeed, are essential if we are to re-establish the consent for partnership government to work.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the passage in the Hillsborough text whereby if steps are not taken in the Assembly to give effect to an IMC report it will be for the British Government, in consultation with the Irish Government and the political parties, to resolve the matter in a manner consistent with the IMC's recommendations. I stress again very firmly that we should act in those circumstances. Where an IMC report includes recommendations for action and where the process outlined in the Hillsborough text does not lead to resolution of the issue, we envisage no circumstances in which we would not exercise the power in a manner consistent with the IMC recommendations. That is the spirit of the Hillsborough textthe Government would seek to give it effect, and do so faithfully with the approval of the House and another place.
	Finally, I shall deal with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. I have tried to answer some of his questions. In a fine speech, in keeping with the highest traditions of the House, he spoke solidly and seriously in favour of the sanctions that the IMC will be able to impose. He recognised the involvement of the Irish Government in the new commission as a strength, not as a weakness. Paramilitaries know no boundaries, and the independent monitoring commission will be able to work closely with and gain the confidence of the security forces, both in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, as a result of the bilateral agreement underpinning the IMC.
	The power of my hon. Friend's oratory was evident when he condemned paramilitaries and underscored the fact that those participating in democratic politics in a power-sharing Executive must not be associated with paramilitary organisations that threaten, attack, intimidate, shoot young men in the legs and drive whole families into exile. His comments are not lost on the Government. We have worked tirelessly to bring peace and normality to Northern Ireland. We inherited the foundations laid by the outgoing Conservative Government.
	I met and talked to a former Royal Ulster Constabulary officer at the dedication of the RUC George Cross garden of remembrance, which is a place of great tranquillity, full of powerful images movingly recalling the sacrifice of all too many police families. The former officer said that he was struck by the fact that so many police lives had been lost, as one sees laid out year by year as one walks through that garden, as well as the many hundreds of otherssoldiers, Catholics, Protestants and others. But he commented on how many lives had been saved since the ceasefires. We should not forget that that move, and the work that we are undertaking to continue it, is saving lives. It is imperative that we continue to maintain the momentum for peace.
	As I said at the outset, it is not difficult to talk the talk of peacemaking. It is much more difficult to walk the walk. Introducing the commission is an important step along the way towards achieving the peaceful outcome that I hope we all seek.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

NORTHERN IRELAND (MONITORING COMMISSION ETC.) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and
	(b) any amount refunded under the Act in respect of any tax or duty. [Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MONITORING COMMISSION ETC.) BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise such incidental charges to inheritance tax as may arise from granting any relief from tax provided for by the Act. [Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.
	Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]
	  
	Clause 1
	  
	The Monitoring Commission

Gregory Campbell: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 1, line 4, leave out from 'established' in line 1 to 'to' in line 6.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 55, in page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 11.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
	'(1A) But, notwithstanding the provisions of that agreement, the Monitoring Commission shall consist of two members only, who shall be appointed by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and of whom one shall be from Northern Ireland.'.
	Amendment No. 65, in page 1, line 12, at end insert
	'( ) establish the Monitoring Commission'.
	Amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 21, at end add
	'(b) The Commission shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.'.
	New clause 3Requisition of Report from Monitoring Commission
	'.When requested to do so by any party represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly to make a report on
	(a) paramilitary activity, or
	(b) whether a Minister or another party in the Assembly is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means,
	the Monitoring Commission shall do so within fourteen days.'.

Gregory Campbell: Amendment No. 64 would restore the rightful role of this, the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As was said on Second Reading, there is a feeling not only among many people in Northern Ireland but among many Northern Ireland Members that that role has been somewhat usurped. Having been raised initially by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the issue was then raised by several others. It was felt that Parliament ought to establish the monitoring commission and ensure not only that it has been established but that its composition is appropriate; any further scrutiny could be conducted through the parliamentary process.
	The genesis of the commission's establishment has been dealt with at length today. It is, of course, rooted in the abject failure over the past five and a half years to deal adequately with the problem of having a terrorist-related political party in government, and the inability either to proceed against that terrorist-related party or to remove it from government without using the proverbial sledgehammer to ensure that all the democrats get a sore head as well.
	The problem has been highlighted in the past 12 months by the suspension of the Assembly. The problem has been compounded by the inadequacy of the voting mechanism to remove the terrorist-related party, namely Sinn Fein-IRA, which is obviously regrettable.
	Amendment No. 64 is very similar to amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). We shall not seek to divide the Committee on amendment 64, in the knowledge that my hon. Friend will do so on amendment No. 1.
	Amendment No. 55 was also referred to on Second Reading. A number of Members mentioned the Bill's apparent inability to deal with an IRA breach. We have witnessed several breaches in the past five years, and many Members have alluded to the fact that if devolution is restored, we could well face several more. Of course, the problem with the independent monitoring commissionamendment No. 55 attempts to address itis that such breaches will be very difficult to define, and to relate specifically to the Provisional IRA and, consequently, to its political affiliate, Sinn Fein.
	Let us imagine that a security breach occurs, and that the Chief Constable and the security services indicate that, in their opinion, the Provisional IRA is to blame. If the IMC investigates the complaint that would doubtless be levelledby an Assembly Member or by someone else wishing to complainvagueness and greyness could well arise, whereby the Provisional IRA's leadership were not told that they in fact sanctioned action against the innocent civilian or security forces member who was targeted.
	On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that if the Bill is not amended in this respect, a fig leaf may remain. Some Unionists could pass the buck for security breaches to the IMC, in the belief that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the IMC definitively to say that the Provisional IRA was responsible for such an action, that it sanctioned it at an official level and that the following sanctions should apply. Of course, those who would wish to use that fig leaf would then say, We tried our best. We established the IMC and we left the issue with it, but it has not been sufficiently precise, clear and definitive for the sanctions to be applied. They could then decide to proceed in government with those terrorists, as they have in the past. They could try to hold their hands up as if they were clean, yet they would be sitting in government with those who support terror and murder.
	Amendment No. 1 deals with the fact that the monitoring commission ought to consist only of members appointed from within the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, it also seems reasonable that one of the two members appointed be from Northern Ireland. As was debated at some length on Second Reading, the difficulty is that if the Bill is not amended and someone from the Irish Republic is appointed to a position that enables them to have an input into the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, that would constitute a clear breach of Northern Ireland's internal politics. The amendment seeks to rectify that.
	Amendment No. 65 deals with the establishment of the monitoring commission and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. If the monitoring commission is not established and approved by the UK Parliament, as outlined in the amendment, the charge will be laid that the Irish Republic is exerting an influence that heretofore the people of Northern Ireland have not had to bear.
	Other amendments are consequential. Amendment No. 66 proposes that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should appoint the monitoring commission. Again, if that were not the case, we would be in serious breach of what was previously termed the strand 1 position in the run-up to the Belfast agreement.
	New clause 3 deals with a significant omission in the Bill, proposing a specific time frame within which action should be taken by the commission. The new clause specifies within fourteen days. We preface the provision with the word shall do so within that period. As with previous breaches, we believe that unless action is taken immediately, there will undoubtedly, as in the past few years, be delay and prevarication. The commencement of legal proceedings will then enter the frame and evidently there will be a prolonged delay in dealing with the issue. We know about what happened in Colombia, which has been ongoing for a prolonged period and the issue is likely to continue into the next calendar year, so we want a specific timetable so that the general public can have some confidence that their concerns are being dealt with expeditiously. Failure to do so would lead to the belief that the Government, perhaps even the commission, had tried to sweep the matter under the carpet in the hope that it would not see the light of day.
	I have explained the reasons for our proposed amendments and we hope and expect to receive some support from across the Chamber.

Alistair Carmichael: I want to put on record succinctly the Liberal Democrat position on the amendments. In our view, they are all essentially wrecking amendments, given the way in which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and his colleagues voted on Second Reading. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate for them to table wrecking amendments at this stage, but I am afraid that we cannot be party to them.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am truly bewildered. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said. On the narrow but important issue of there being some time scale, I thought that he expressed an entirely reasonable point of view. I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) describe the measure as a wrecking amendment. It seems eminently sensible and I hope that the Minister will pick up on it.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I was damning all the amendments in the group by association, but that one is an honourable exception. The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to remove the Republic of Ireland completely from the work of the commission, and that cannot be seen as anything other than a wrecking amendment. A number of drafting difficulties also arise. For example, I have tried to put amendment No. 66 in the context of the Bill but I cannot do so.

David Burnside: I speak in support of amendment No. 1, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friends. It is not a wrecking amendment and it should cause no offence to our colleagues, neighbours and friends in the Irish Republic. Nor should it cause any offence to our allies, the United States of America, whatever Administration are in power. As an Ulster Unionist, I believe that Unionism suffered badly for many years because it did not promote itself with the American Administration and Congress. Nor, indeed, did we argue our cause with the Irish Republic.
	Amendment No. 1 is based on a matter of principle. Our experience in Northern Ireland since the internationalisation that resulted from the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreementwhich I mentioned on Second Readingis that we have been under a form of joint authority that would not be acceptable in any other part of the United Kingdom. We wish to have co-operation from the Irish Republic. Indeed, we wish that we had had much more co-operation during the 30 years of terrorism from the Irish Republic on extradition, on acting against the Provisional IRA and on removing the arms dumps in the Republic, which were contrary to its constitution. We also wish that we had had more support from the US Administration in undermining Noraid and other fundraising for republicanism and terrorism. Some things have changed. Good has come from evil, with the worldwide campaign, after 11 September 2001, against terrorism from all quarters. We support that, and we want the help and support of the US Administration.
	However, it is not right that a representative from either the United States or the Irish Republic should sit on the commission. It should be the sole sovereign responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. We have had enough experience of the Anglo-Irish agreement and its implementation in terms of interference in our internal affairs by the Government of the Irish Republic. We also had an international commission on policing, but it did not reflect the views of the majority law-abiding community in Northern Ireland. It was an internationalised commission that, for political reasons and not good, sensible policing reasons, forced through several changes that did not, and do not, have the consent of that majority.
	We wish to divide the House on amendment No. 1. It is an important principle that the Government of United Kingdom, and thus Northern Ireland, has the sole responsibility. We do not need more international commissions or representatives from the Irish Republic. We need help, support and co-operation, but not formal participation from either the Irish Republic or the United States.

Lembit �pik: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that two people are sufficient for the composition of the commission? Notwithstanding his concerns about the international nature of the body, surely it cannot work practically or effectively with only two members?

David Burnside: Not being a Liberal Democrat, I have never been a believer in large committees, either in my business or my political life. I have believed that small, concentrated decision-making bodies, providing advice to the Executive, are the best way to run a Government. I have proposed in this House on a number of occasions that a commission should be set up that would be a Committee of this House. It would comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Ulster Unionist parties. It would seek advice from the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland. They would give their views on whether Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked with the IRA, was involved in terrorist activity.
	That would be a much better and much more British form of institution than yet another internationalised body. I believe that the proposed commission will be toothless and ineffective.

Seamus Mallon: I note the content of the amendments and of clause 1. I am astounded by the insular and isolationist approach evident in the remarks of the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). That is simply an observation.
	When the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), replies to the debate, I hope that he will confirm that clause 1 contains no reference, oblique or otherwise, to the functions of the independent commission. In fairness to me, and in the interests of accuracy, that must be put on the record, and the response to the debate will provide the opportunity for that.

David Trimble: The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) suggested that some awful consequences might flow if it was not shown that the monitoring commission was established by this Parliament. I am not sure what the need for that is, as the proposals show that it is being established under the royal prerogative. I should have thought that that was enough to show the clear British ownership of the concept.
	If the amendments are accepted, the proposed monitoring commission will never come into existence, and the procedures that have been discussed and agreed will fall with it. The commitments that have been given about acting in accordance with monitoring reports will disappear into a limbo, and I do not know whether they can be dug out again. If the amendments are carried, the whole idea will disappear into a limbo, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) noted.
	I cannot go along all the way with the comments about insularity made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), but I hope that the gentleman sitting to my left, the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), will reflect on the fact that the problem with which we are dealing is not confined to Northern Ireland. That might be the place where some of the problems are most acute, but they are not confined to Northern Ireland. We know that it extends further afieldindeed, much of the infrastructure of the republican movement is south of the border.
	Unionists have complained about that, year in and year out. They have talked about the need for co-operation, but how can that be achieved if they will not deal with people? To assume that a person nominated by the Irish Government must be that Government's agent is a little fanciful. However, the basic point remains: if one wants co-operation, one needs to speak to people and set up procedures that allow them to have their input. We need access to intelligence in the Republic of Ireland. We also need the co-operation of the relevant agencies in the US, and much reference has been made to events in that hemisphere.
	Before we cut off all the sources of help, it might be worth pausing for consideration. For that reason, I make it clear that we in the Ulster Unionist party cannot support the amendments.

Peter Robinson: This set of amendments goes to the heart of the Bill. I believe that it is the most important set that we will deal with in the short time that we have available. I regret to say that each amendment deals with a number of vital issues. For that reason, since the House will not wishnor will you, Sir Michael, flexible and generous though you always areto extend us the time for a vote on each, we must choose which is the most important. I wish to speak about several, but it may help Whips and others to know our view that it would be best to divide on amendment No. 1. There is a similarity between that and amendment No. 64, so we will seek to withdraw that and hope to find the Chairman generous enough to allow us to divide on amendment No. 1.
	Amendments Nos. 64 and 1 deal with who runs Northern Ireland and whether it is appropriate for people from other countries to be directly or tangentially involved in its governance. The amendments make it clear that we believe that the commission is a United Kingdom matter and that those involved in decision making should therefore come from the United Kingdom, and from the United Kingdom alone. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that in order to have friends around the world one must involve them in the day-to-day operation of our country. That is nonsense. We can be best friends with our neighbours in the Irish Republic and the best friends of the Government and people of the United States without having them dealing with matters directly relating to Northern Ireland. Where assistance can usefully be given, it is appropriate to ask our friends for it, but it should not come with the price of allowing them a roleI might say an interfering rolein the way in which the Province is run.
	That is all the more important when one considers that the Government of the Irish Republic publicly announce that they speak at meetings with Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. They are a partisan player in Northern Ireland matters. Would that there were someone at the table to represent the Unionist community. The Government do not see themselves doing that; they see themselves as neutral. When consultation takes place between the Government of the Irish Republic and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, one party is partisan in favour of the nationalist community, arguing for and speaking for it, while the other partner claims to be neutral.
	The IMC should, in my view, be an entirely United Kingdom body, appointed by the United Kingdom through Ministers answerable in this House. There should not be one member appointed by the Government of the Irish Republic, and one by both Governments on the recommendation of the United States. That is a major point of principle, and I do not support the internationalisation of the Northern Ireland situation. That was the folly of the Ulster Unionist party. Lord Maginnisas he now iswas the one who publicly announced for an international commission to take a role in decommissioning matters, thus starting the process of internationalisation.

David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman refers to internationalisation of matters relating to Northern Ireland. Can he tell me who agreed to the ground rules and the basic concept of the three-stranded talks back in the early 1990s?

Peter Robinson: I hope that everyone agreed to the ground rules for the three strands, which clearly said that only the parties in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Government should be party to any discussion relating to the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. The Government of the Irish Republic were to be involved in those matters only where the relationship was between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It seems good common sense that if one wants a relationship with the Irish Republic, one should talk to the Irish Republic. That was the argument. That is why we were round the table with the Irish Republic at that strand. It is not internationalising the Northern Ireland situation. It is having a relationship with your neighbour, not bringing them in to take decisions on the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. Sadly, the right hon. Gentleman and his party, or half of it at least, have been responsible for that.
	Other amendments, of which amendment No. 55 is perhaps the most significant, deal with the responsibility of the monitoring commission. Should it have the broad sweep of responsibilitydealing with monitoring behaviour in relation to the pledge to keep politics exclusively peaceful and democraticor should it be expanded to deal with normalisation, which is a Government matter, and indeed with political issues relating to the pledge of office? Clearly, the latter two are included only because the Government do not want Sinn Fein to be standing out there on its own. That is no good reason to try to bring other people into the process and to expand the role of the monitoring commission.
	Amendment No. 55 would restrict any role that the Government might give a commission to determining whether people are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means, which seems appropriate. We would like to vote on all the amendments in the list, but clearly the key issue is encapsulated by amendment No. 1.

Ian Paisley: It would be interesting for the Committee to remember that those of us on the Unionist side who were in at the early talks all agreed that strand 1 was a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Parliament and Government alone to decide. The south of Ireland had no say in strand 1we won that, only because we took a determined standalthough when we went to strand 2, which dealt with issues of neighbourliness between the two parts of Ireland, the Irish Government were there. However, the Irish Government did not like that situation. On every occasion that they could, they insisted that they were the spokesmen for the nationalist people of Northern Ireland.
	Only one body can speak for the people of Northern Ireland, democratically speaking, and that is this Parliament. The Irish Government did not say that they were speaking in the interests of the Irish Republic. They said that they were the spokesmen for the nationalist community. One cannot have that sort of carry-on at such talks. There must be people who speak officially for each of the parties. The time has come to revisit this issue. We must insist that the southern Government have no say in strand 1. It is not their bailiwick: it is that of this Parliament, this Government and the people of Northern Ireland.
	Lord Molyneaux reminded the other place of what a great Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party and the British people, Mr. Wilson, had to say on the subject: that the governance of Northern Ireland is for the people and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We hold to that.

John Spellar: During the early part of this debate, I found myself in some agreement with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I have recovered.
	I am not entirely sure which amendments will be dealt with, so I shall try to encompass all of them in my remarks, as several of the issues that were raised overlap. Amendment No. 55 would limit the role of the IMC to reporting on paramilitary activity. It would remove references in clause 1 to normalisation and the pledge of office. That is not acceptable in policy terms, as it undermines the purpose of the Bill; nor does it acknowledge the realities of the situation.
	The agreement carefully provides for reports on three specific matters. The need for reports on paramilitary activity is certainly not in question, but we want and need to go further in order to ensure that there are independent reports on matters that are at the heart of implementing the Belfast agreement. Those reports will help to rebuild trust and confidence. That is our aim.
	Normalisation reports are a crucial part of that process, as is the stability of the democratic institutions. To those who are concerned that the joint declaration sets out a normalisation programme, I point out that it will not begin until the right security environment is achieved. The IMC will have no role in monitoring the programme until notified under article 15 of the agreement.
	Hon. Members have focused on amendment No. 1, which concerns the membership of the commission. The commission will be established by the international agreement published on 5 September and will take effect once it has been signed and ratified by both the British and Irish Governments. It is that agreement, not the Bill, which establishes the commission's membership and functions.
	The international agreement gives effect to the proposals agreed between the Governments at Hillsborough earlier this year, as set out in the monitoring and compliance document published on 1 May. Specifically, the scheme that we are considering today has always envisaged a commission of four members: two appointed by the UK, one appointed by Ireland and one appointed by the two Governments on a nomination from the United States. That flows from the fact that the commission forms part of the arrangements that we are establishing for monitoring and promoting compliance on a range of commitments relating to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement and the restoration of stable and inclusive institutions. That remains the Government's position, so we are unable to agree to the amendment, as it would be incompatible with the requirements of the agreement.
	Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 would make the monitoring commission purely a UK body. They would put the setting up of the commission and the making of appointments to it solely in the hands of the Secretary of State. They would not of themselves amend the provisions of the agreement published on 5 September.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) said that the amendments were not intended as wrecking. In part, I take his point. However, they would have an effect on the Bill: namely, the creation of a parallel commission. It would be established by the Secretary of State and appointments would be made by him. Later references in the Bill would thus be to that body and not to the one that would be established by the agreementthe Government policy to which the measure gives effect.
	The amendments would seriously undermine our purpose of helping to restore trust and confidence through independent monitoring of paramilitary activity, normalisation and political breaches, so we cannot accept them.
	New clause 3 is unnecessary. We believe that the IMC should be constituted under the international agreement that we propose. That is the purpose of the legislation. Article 6 of the agreement already permits the commission to consider a claim by any party represented in the Assembly that a Minister or any other party in the Assembly is not committed to non-violence or exclusively democratic or peaceful means. That is in line with the terms of the proposed new clause.
	I am aware of the time and realise that the Committee wants to deal with some of the other amendments, so, in summary, we believe that it is right that the commission is constituted on an international basis, for many of the reasons eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Peter Robinson: Before the Minister strays too far from new clause 3, he might like to comment on timetabling, which is one of its elements. Many of us are concerned that the Bill would allow considerable delay and that weeks or months could pass while a serious issue confronted the Assembly. What is the Government's view as to the length of time that the commission should take when considering such matters?

John Spellar: I am sorryI had hoped to make progress, but I will now have to refer to new clause 3 in slightly more detail.
	The current provisions permit the consideration of claims where the allegation is that a Minister has failed to observe any pledge of office set out in the agreement or that a party has not committed its members who are or may be Ministers to doing so. Those in favour of the amendments and new clause 3 would not allow the commission such a remit. We believe that it is essential to cover such matters. [Interruption.] I shall deal with timing in a second. The operation of lawfully constituted democratic institutions in good faith is essential to partnership government, and so to peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
	The international agreement puts the commission on a fixed time scale. It has to report at six-monthly intervals. The two Governments jointly may also ask it to make other reports. In principle, we believe that the reporting cycle envisaged by the agreement is correct. Consideration of paramilitary activity across the board, as opposed to the affairs of individuals or a political party, may require a great deal of evidence to be considered.
	New clause 3 would render proper reporting impractical, by giving any party the right to commission such reports as often as it saw fit. We believe that a workable, practical timetable has been outlined that will not lead to endless delay. Equally, the commission will not be pressed into ducking and diving between a number of different issues, so it will be able to put in the sustained work that is necessary.
	On whether the commission should be placed on an international basis, we believe that it should have a remit to consider not only the commitment to non-violenceabsolutely vital though that is, for all the reasons that have been given by hon. Members tonightbut other threats to the stable operation of the institutions.
	The commission should report regularly on paramilitary activity. Subject to that, we believe that it is for the commission itself to judge how long it is necessary to take to evaluate properly and to reach conclusions, and it will obviously want to do so as expeditiously as possible to maintain trust and confidence. Obviously, undue delay would militate against that. For the same reasons, the commission must not produce superficial or insufficiently investigated reports. It must be able to judge in those matters. Accordingly, we believe that new clause 3 is misconceived, and we cannot support it. If Opposition Members persist in wishing to press the matter to a Division, I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose them in the Lobby.

Gregory Campbell: I wish to respond briefly, as I am anxious about the passage of time. A number of substantive points were made by hon. Members who spoke in favour of these amendments, but of course, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was not one of them, which would not surprise most of us. He suggested on a couple of occasions that the entire concept would fallI think that that was the phrase he usedif these amendments were agreed to. When we align that with some of the statements and references that we have just heard the Minister make, it would appear that the substance behind the IMC seems to have been agreed in advance, that any amendment is likely to be futile and that whatever deal has been arrived at is one of sum and substance.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggests that if we tinker with the proposals at all, they will fall. I do not know whether that is because the entire Bill has been discussed between himself and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who also happens to sit on the IRA army council, and agreed with him, and we will have to see whether that is coloured by the public protestations by Sinn Fein about opposition and non-co-operation with the IMC.
	The other issue that leaves us somewhat lacking in information is the Minister's response to the timing. Under new clause 3, we attempted to try to tie down the issues so that the matter would be responded to and dealt with at a brief juncture. He now tells us that there will be a report by the IMC at six-monthly intervals. Given the precedents established by the decommissioning body in Northern Ireland

John Spellar: May I clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman? I apologise if I had not made the position clear. The international agreement, as I said, puts the commission on a fixed time scale to report at six-monthly intervals. The two Governments may also jointly ask it to make other reports.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Minister for that. The two Governments indeed may do so. We will wait and see whether there are any reports that do not amount to a string of beans in between the six-monthly intervals. The issue on which I wanted to elaborate slightly, however, was that the precedents are not good in that we have what amounts to an international decommissioning commission in Northern Ireland, which has been in operation for a significant period. It has not exactly been overburdened with workthat is being polite and very kind. In fact, it has cost millions of pounds but it has done virtually nothing. It reports very infrequently. Will the mighty international commission that we are being asked to endorse, without any amendments, it appears, be any more definitive? Will it take any more substantive action, or will it be a case yet again of an attempt to fudge an issue and sweep it under the carpet in an endeavour to try to get the show back on the road and to get devolution restored in the hope that eventually people will be worn down and accept the inevitable, as some people would try to present it?
	To assist the Minister, I will repeat what I and some of my colleagues said: because of amendment No. 1 being similar in substance to amendment No. 64, we will not pursue amendment No. 64 to a Division. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert
	'(1A) But, notwithstanding the provisions of that agreement, the Monitoring Commission shall consist of two members only, who shall be appointed by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and of whom one shall be from Northern Ireland.'.[David Burnside.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 330, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	  
	Resolutions About Exclusion

Andrew MacKinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 20, at end insert
	'(6A) In subsection (5) (motion for resolution not to be moved unless certain conditions are satisfied), for Presiding Officer in pursuance of a notice there is substituted Secretary of State.'.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 24 and insert
	'may appear before the Assembly and'.
	Amendment No. 67, in page 3, line 43, at end insert
	'(7A) Where a recommendation has been made by the Commission mentioned in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003, the Secretary of State shall within seven days of receiving the recommendation serve a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for such a resolution.'.
	Amendment No. 68, in clause 7, page 6, line 20, at end insert
	'(7A) Where a recommendation has been made by the Commission mentioned in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003, the Secretary of State shall within seven days of receiving the recommendation serve a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for such a resolution.'.
	Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 16, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 19, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 20 and insert
	'may appear before the Assembly and'.
	Amendment No. 26, in clause 8, page 10, line 10, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 13, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 14 and insert
	'may appear before the Assembly and'.
	Amendment No. 28, in clause 9, page 12, line 17, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 20, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 21 and insert
	'may appear before the Assembly and'.
	Amendment No. 69, in page 12, line 22, at end insert
	'(3A) Where a recommendation has been made by the Commission mentioned in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003, the Secretary of State shall within seven days of receiving the recommendation serve a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for such a resolution.'.
	New clause 4Requirement for early debate where notice served by Secretary of State
	'.Where the Secretary of State has served a notice under section 30(6), section 47A(7) or section 51A(6) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 the Assembly shall debate such a motion within 7 days.'.

Andrew MacKinlay: I want to speak to the series of amendments tabled in my name. Their kernel is encapsulated in amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
	As the Bill stands, if the Secretary of State has not been able to persuade the Northern Ireland Assembly to put in train the exclusion of a Minister from the Executive, he has the option and power to take the initiative. In listening to this evening's debates and thinking about the Bill, I have increasingly felt that much of what it deals with will not happen anyway. I preface my remarks with that observation because we have almost been getting into an academic exercise. However, I am not the author of the Bill and I believe that we need to conduct proper scrutiny.
	The Bill proposes that, in extremis, when the First Minister and his deputy are unable to take the initiative by going to the Assembly and obtaining cross-party and cross-community agreement to the exclusion of a Minister, the Secretary of State canthis is the point that I invite the Committee to considerinstruct the presiding officer of the Assembly to table a motion. That is absurd. In the likely event of such circumstances arising, it would be much better and in the interests of everybody concerned for the Secretary of State to attend the Assembly and speak to the motion himself. That is what my amendments seek to achieve.
	First, it is part of the rules of natural justice that people should be able to face their traducers and probe the reasons for any action against them. Secondly, I invite the Committee to consider this point: if we are in such a critical situation in which there is a paralysis, but the Secretary of State finds it essential that a Minister should be excluded, it will be in his interests to marshal all his advocacy and oratorical skills to persuade the paralysed Assemblyby definition, it would be paralysedto take the necessary action.
	I do not want to labour the point, but it is nonsense that the presiding officer should be the instrument or vehicle for these matters. Clearly, the legislation as it stands implies that the presiding officer would move the motion formally. If I am wrong, however, the presiding officer will be put in an invidious position, especially as he or she can, under existing legislation, be appointed by the Secretary of State and will not necessarily command widespread support in the Assembly. It seems crazy to introduce a formulation whereby the presiding officer will table the motion to exclude a Minister.

Nigel Dodds: In seeking to require that the Secretary of State come to the Assembly in person to table the motion, does the hon. Gentleman intend that he should be subject to questions? Obviously, the presiding officer would not be in such a position. Does he think that such questioning would be helpful in elucidating the Government's position in such an eventuality?

Andrew MacKinlay: Absolutely. Let us suppose that, in the absence of the Secretary of State, the presiding officer comes along and tells the Assembly, I am formally instructed to move this motion. Presumably, that would fall on deaf ears if the Assembly had not already been persuaded, or was not acting on its own initiative. My amendment No. 23 provides for the Secretary of State to argue his case before the Assembly. He would be subject to questioning, and would be able to marshal all his energies to persuade the Assembly that exclusion was crucial to the Northern Ireland political process.

Alistair Carmichael: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the invidious position in which the Bill places the presiding officer, but I am not entirely persuaded that his suggested solution is the best. I understand that the Secretary of State currently has no speaking rights in the Assembly, and amendment of its standing orders would be necessary for him to acquire them. I feel that, by acting through the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman would interfere with the Assembly's integrity. Surely it is every legislature's right to determine its own standing orders.

Andrew MacKinlay: That is an interesting point. We need to distinguish between a devolved and a subordinate Assembly or legislature. Whether we like it or not, painful though it may be, the Northern Ireland Assemblyunlike the Scottish Parliament and, to an extent, the Welsh Assemblyis by definition a subordinate legislature.
	We are talking about mechanisms to exclude Ministers who are answerable to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I did not write the provision allowing the Secretary of State to instruct the presiding officer to move a motion to exclude them. If my amendment were accepted, the question of standing orders would become academic.

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman may not be giving due consideration to two points. First, in his opening remarks, the Secretary of State made the connection between the proposal as it stands and the agreement setting up the entire political process. That cannot be dealt with arbitrarily, although that is what the Bill effectively does. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State should go and speak to the Assembly. One assumes that he will give the Assembly information. Can we imagine a Secretary of State who cannot divulge intelligence and information that he possesses being able to address an Assembly or answer its questions? Such an arrangement would be dangerous for the Secretary of State, and I cannot imagine any Secretary of State agreeing to be put in such a position.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State might not be able to divulge information to the legislature. Surely it would be 10 times worse for him to lob a letter through the letterbox and tell the presiding officer to read it out. Not only is that an insult, it would carry no clout whatever. In the extraordinary circumstances in which the Secretary of State could not get the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to take the initiative, and in which it was impossible to guarantee a majority in the voting system of the Chamber, the Secretary of State might well think he could swing it. Having done his arithmetic, he might think that the voting could be extremely narrow.
	Indeed, I can foresee circumstances in which the voting could be very close; it could come down to one or two votes. He might be in a position to persuade the legislature to take that initiative.

Lembit �pik: This is a very interesting point, not least because it tests the Assembly's status. Given that we are trying to normalise the situation, surely the more that we can ensure that the Assembly conducts such matters itselfeven with consultation between, say, the Secretary of State and the presiding officerthe better.
	On the presiding officer's having trouble, even Martin Luther King and Gandhiand, indeed, the current Secretary of Statewho had all the charisma in the world would find it difficult simply to go in and achieve the outcome that the hon. Gentleman suggests, not least because doing so would be regarded as interference by the very people who are resisting the actions of the presiding officer.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not want to labour the point, but we are talking about an in extremis situation. The Bill as drafted deals with the situation in which the Secretary of State tells the Northern Ireland Assembly that it must consider the motion, but does soI am not being flippantby letter. That is nonsense. If it is so imperative that that should happen, surely it is in everyone's interests that he appear alongside the presiding officer in that lovely chamber, state his case and respond to questions. Inevitably, there would be a wider audience, including a television audience. He might well legitimately take the opportunity to appeal to that audience, to give legitimacy to what would be a very grave act.

Iain Luke: No one doubts the sincerity of my hon. Friend's suggestions. Following on from the point made during the previous intervention, the question of the Executive entering the legislature smacks of Charles I entering the House of Commons and asking for Members to be removed. There is a fine line between what the Executive can do and what the legislature's approach is, given that we are trying to foster democracy in Northern Ireland.

Andrew MacKinlay: One point

Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: Of course.

Ian Paisley: This procedure was in fact carried out in the old Assemblies. The Secretary of State addressed us on many occasions; indeed, a whole series of Secretaries of State did so. We did not feel belittled because they came to address us; in fact, it gave standing to the Assembly. It also allowed us to show that we were reasonable people who could argue our case. The Secretary of State's coming to address the Assembly does not demean it.

Andrew MacKinlay: On the King or the Executive coming to Parliament, thank goodness that Charles I did come and that Speaker Lenthall was able to tell him where to go. I remember it well: If it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, except for the permission of this House, whose humble servant I am. Get lost! At least the legislature was able to stand up to traducers. What if Charles I had simply sent a letter saying, You're all under arrest? That is what is being suggested here.
	The amendment would improve the Bill, but I imagine that it will not be given further consideration by the Secretary of State. As with much Northern Ireland legislation, the bolts and rivets are being put in the Bill as it goes down the slipway. Bouncing legislation through without due consideration is not the best way to form it.

Nigel Dodds: There is much merit in the point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) makes through his amendment. The argument that the Assembly and its Members are in some way demeaned by the procedure that he proposes is ludicrous, given that the entire the Bill is based on the idea that the Secretary of State will have the power to act when the Assembly has not agreed that such action be taken. Those who argue against the hon. Gentleman do so on a completely wrong basis, because tonight they will no doubt support provisions that give the Secretary of State powers to do what the Assembly has not voted for.
	I want to speak briefly to our amendment No. 67 and consequential amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that, when the Secretary of State receives a recommendation from the international monitoring commission, he would be required to send it to the presiding officer in the Assembly within a set period of seven days. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has to consider the resolution to serve a notice on the presiding officer, but absolutely no time limit is specified for his consideration before the resolution has to go before the Assembly. That highlights one of the concerns voiced on Second Reading and mentioned by several hon. Membershow long the procedures will take to reach a definite conclusion from the moment a complaint is made. It will first be referred to the monitoring commission and then go through the labyrinthine and byzantine procedures set out in the Bill. As the Bill is currently drafted, when the Secretary of State eventually receives a resolution, he can spend as much time as he likes considering the matter.
	As we heard earlier, the Secretary of State will be requiredit applies to allegations of a breach on political grounds or a paramilitary breachto consult the Dublin Government. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State was rather coy about clarifying the matter. He talked about formal consultation as if it were all about having a chat over a cup of tea in the corridor. The fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will consult and involve the Dublin Government in the crucial issue of the possible penalties to be imposed on a party or a Minister in respect of a so-called political breach within the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is clearly not a matter for the Dublin Government; it should be a matter entirely for Her Majesty's Government and the parties in Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: Is the key issue less the procedure that the Government are setting up than the problem of ensuring that there is sufficient time not to deal with the subject matter of the complaint, but to allow the Government to cobble together another dealas they have on every occasionby making further concessions to get Sinn Fein to start toeing the line?

Nigel Dodds: That is precisely the case. By the time any decision would be forthcoming, so much time would have elapsed that people in the communityno doubt including newspaper editors and otherswould ask whether there was any point in pursuing the matter. They would say that time had passed and that it was time to move on and, as the Minister of State said earlier, to look to the future.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is not that precisely what the Government want in respect of Florida, Colombia, Castlereagh and Stormontgate? They propose to take no action regarding those breaches, and no sanctions will be applied against Sinn Fein-IRA for the republican movement's involvement in all those matters. They are to be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about.

Nigel Dodds: That is right. We have just dealt with clauses 2 and 3 and we saw that clause 2 specifically bars the monitoring commission from dealing with matters that may be prejudiced and have to go to court. That will undoubtedly affect cases such as Castlereagh, Colombia and the Florida gun running, which have all been subject to court proceedings. For similar cases in future, the monitoring commission will say that it cannot deal with them, because it is specifically barred from involvement in cases going to court. What therefore is the point of all this? It is designed to act as a fig leaf so that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) can go around the country pretending that he has an effective sanctionhe called it a guaranteebut, as has been exposed tonight, it is nothing of the sort. It is designed to string out complaints so that by the time they are dealt with, another deal or fudge has been put together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out.
	We can contrast that approach with the Government's attitude to the tabling of a censure motion. I raised the matter earlier and the Minister of State said that it would not demean the work of the Assembly or the value of such motions. However, that was not the point that we were making. Our point was that the Bill would make it harder to table such a motion. The Minister did not deal with that point, but with an entirely different one. I hope that Ministers will listen carefully to the points that we make. To make it harder for Members of the Assembly to raise issues or to table motions when other Members are in breach of the commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is reprehensible. Then to have a procedure that could be strung out, without any effective timetable to bring matters speedily to a head, will not provide muchif anyconfidence to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.

Seamus Mallon: I wish to reply to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). It is a matter of historical record that the then equivalent of the Secretary of State took a view on the subordinate Administration in Northern Ireland. He did not go to that Administration. Instead, he said, Come to me, and when they got there, he said, Pack your bags and go. The absence of an Administration lasted some 30 years. Such an approach will not work with the Assembly.
	I also noted the disparaging way in which the hon. Gentleman referred to the failure of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to obtain a majority in the Assembly. He should know that given the difficulties in Northern Ireland politics it can be difficult to get a majority within one's own partyI speak of all parties involvedlet alone in the Assembly. I make those points gently to the hon. Gentleman.
	The functions of the body have been mentioned, so I wish to refer again to Lord Williams of Mostyn and what he said in the other place. My earlier remarks were made at least seven hours ago, so one or other Minister should have had the good grace to get up and say that the Government agree with their Minister in the House of Lords. That is the least that he could expect from his colleagues in the Government.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have been misunderstood enough this summer, so I want to make it clear that I did not mean to make any disparaging remarks about the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. I am fully aware of the difficulties and constraints of marshalling majorities within one's own party and across the complicated system in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I was looking ahead to when we get the Assembly up and runningI hope that we do, and that it can achieve concord and marshal a majority viewbut the Bill foresees a scenario in which the Secretary of State might have to instruct the presiding officer to take that action. I am not the author of the Bill: the Secretary of State is its author.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Far be it from me to suggest that he might speak in a disparaging way about Northern Ireland parties, or anyone else. I am not suggesting that, but if an Administration in the north of Ireland is to be made to work, we must give it respect. It must be allowed to gain its self-respect, and it should not have to grapple with an overtly subordinate position. Whatever else we know about people in the north of Ireland, we know that they will not respond if they are treated in that way.

Jane Kennedy: I confirm that what my noble and learned Friend Lord Williams said in another place on 15 Septemberit can be found at column 667 of the Hansard record for that daywas correct. I hope that that answers the point, but I will look in detail at the debate that we have had on the matter to see whether further clarification is necessary.
	The amendments and new clause moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) would curtail the opportunity for reflection among the parties on what the proper response might be to a report by the independent monitoring commission in a way that is inconsistent with the agreement and compliance published on 1 May following discussions at Hillsborough castle. That scheme makes it clear that once a report containing a recommendation has been published by the IMC it is for the Assembly parties to consider what their response might be.
	The parties are not bound by the terms of the IMC report. It remains open to them to respond in line with its recommendations or to take any of the other steps available to them under the Bill. By requiring the Secretary of State to act to ensure that a motion embodying the report's recommendation is laid within seven days of the report being received, and that that motion is debated within seven days of its being notified to the presiding officer, the amendments would reduce the time available to the Assembly parties to reflect on what course of action they might take in response to a report.
	Not only is that not consistent with the Hillsborough text but, by providing that the commission's recommendations would automatically be embodied in motions before the Assembly
	1015 It being nine hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Allocation of time motion, The First Deputy Chairman put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 338, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 5 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12
	  
	Short Title, Commencement and Repeals

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 16, line 35, leave out subsection (5).[Mr. Spellar.]
	Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Bill reported, with an amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.[Vernon Coaker.]
	The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 9.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the orders of the House of 15 September, any message from the Lords relating to the Local Government Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question put. I have to inform the House that a message has been received as follows: the Lords do not insist on certain of their amendments to the Local Government Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; they agree to the amendments proposed by the Commons to another Lords amendment; and they agree to the Commons consequential amendments to the Bill. They do not insist on the remaining Lords amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose an amendment in lieu thereof. Copies of the Lords amendment in lieuamendment No. 3Bare in the Vote Office. I should inform the House that the amendment involves questions of privilege.

Clause 11
	  
	Use of Capital Receipts

Lords amendment No. 3B

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I regret that the Lords have seen fit to pass a further amendment to the clause, one of the key financial clauses in the Bill. I particularly regret that, because this House rightly and properly asserted its privilege in financial matters when it disagreed with the Lords amendment on Monday night. The new amendment would have the same effect. It would prevent the pooling of capital receipts and so would alter the financial arrangements made by this House.
	The suggestion made by Baroness Hanham in another place that the latest amendment is somehow a compromise is wholly spurious. Like its predecessor, the amendment would make it impossible for capital receipts received by debt-free authorities to be brought within the pooling mechanism. That directly conflicts with the Government's financial provisions in the Bill. Therefore, once again, privilege applies. Indeed, given the nature of clause 11(2)(b), I cannot conceive of any amendment where this would not be the case.
	It would not only be utterly wrong but a very dangerous precedent for this House to waive its privilege on financial matters and permit the Lords amendment to stand. It would also be wrong, because the amendment undermines one of the key principles of the Government's housing finance policy and, indeed, one of the key principles underlying the financial provisions of the Bill.

Edward Davey: rose

Nick Raynsford: It is fundamental to the Government's approach to public finance and investment in public services that resources are allocated on the basis of need, not on the basis of accident or chance. On that happy note, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward Davey: Will the Minister explain the point about privilege a little more? The amendment does not increase or lower taxation and it does not increase or lower overall spending. It just changes the way in which the spending is allocated. How can that relate to privilege?

Nick Raynsford: The amendment alters the financial arrangement made by the House and would have the direct effect of making it impossible for the Government to secure the pooling of 120 million worth of capital receipts received by debt-free authorities. That, by any measure, is a significant financial impact on which this House rightly insists on privilege.

John Gummer: Will the Minister be kind enough to consider this not as a financial matter, but as a moral matter? Surely this is a moral issue. He is taking away from those who have been careful with their money and giving it to people who have not been careful. That is not a financial issue; that is a moral issue.

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not here two nights ago when we debated these issues in some detail. He would then have heard me explain that this has nothing to do with prudence or good or bad management. We are dealing with the application of capital receipts that come from the sale of council houses under the right-to-buy policy. That reflects the decisions taken not by councils, but by tenants. It also reflects the accidents of geography as to where the properties are located.
	The right hon. Gentleman was a Secretary of State for the Environment.

Peter Pike: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: I am answering the question asked by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
	The right hon. Gentleman will know that some areas are rich in receipts because they happen to have the good fortune of being located in areas with high house prices. The Government in which he was a senior Minister arranged a mechanism for redistributing capital receipts so that those derived by areas that were fortunate because of their geography and tenants' decisions to buy properties could be used to help areas without such advantages. If that was acceptable and right for the Government of which he was a member in 1990, why is the principle wrong now? What is the morality that differentiates the two circumstances?

John Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman is avoiding my question. I am not arguing about whether he is right or wrong. I am saying that the argument that the matter is one of privilege because it is about only money is not correct. He has to argue the case on its merits rather than arguing the case for putting two fingers up at the other House. If he argues the case well on its merits, I might well be persuaded by it. However, he cannot say, I am very sorry but we mustn't discuss this at all because I've already decided that it comes under a nice little box on which I don't have to argue the merits. Will he argue the merits of his case and not be rude about the House of Lords?

Nick Raynsford: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, if he had been here on Monday night he would have heard the debate in detail because we argued the point at length. If he had been a member of the Committee that considered the BillI am not suggesting that he should have beenhe would have heard the debates there. The issues have been explored in the House in enormous detail. The amendment has significant financial consequences. The House decided by a substantial majority on Monday evening not to accept the original Lords amendment and, on a matter of privilege, advised their Lordships accordingly. It is extremely disappointing that they have, to use the right hon. Gentleman's delightful phrase, lifted two fingers. I hope that he, as a good democrat, will join us in advising Members of the other place to respect this House's privileges.

Peter Pike: It is right to underline a point that my right hon. Friend is making. If Burnley borough council sold a piece of land, it would get little money for it. However, if the land was only 24 miles away in the centre of Manchester, it would probably be worth 10 times as much, and if it was in London it could easily be worth 100 times as much. The issue has nothing to do with local councils' prudence; it is merely a matter of geography.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point that is based on his considerable experience. He speaks for a part of the country that has some of the lowest house prices and, therefore, some of the greatest difficulties. He is working with his colleagues to try to address those problems. The Government are trying to help areas in need through the injection of substantial additional funds and by following the previous Government's policy of recycling capital receipts to ensure that they may be allocated to areas in need.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister might well point out that I was not here on Monday either, but I was actually talking about this very matter with the chief executive of Macclesfield borough council. The council has run its affairs extremely well and is debt free, which it has achieved by not embarking on irresponsible and spendthrift policies. Is the Minister not concerned that his policy might deter responsible councils from trying to become debt free? Surely he wants responsible debt-free authorities.

Nick Raynsford: That is exactly what we want and our policies are designed to achieve that. Indeed, we made it clear on MondayI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not be with usthat the arrangements that we are putting in place provide real incentives for prudence and good financial management. We want fairness so that authorities that have high needs and low resources are not penalised in favour of authorities that have, by the accident of geography, much greater resources and, in some cases, lesser needs.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has just agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that what the Government want is responsible, debt-free authorities.

Nick Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: That is exactly what the Minister has just agreed with my hon. Friend. What I understood the Minister to say on Monday was that he did not see any particular merit in being debt free.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard tomorrow, he will see that what I was saying was that we are keen that there should be arrangements in place that encourage prudent financial management and responsible administration. I said nothing at all about whether that involved the authority being debt free or not. That is an accident[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield certainly said that but I made the point that we were interested in prudent financial management and good conduct of financial affairs. The accident of whether an authority happens to be debt free is often simply the product of good fortune and of being in an area with high house prices and high capital values.

John Gummer: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: I am going to make some progress now because these issues have been exhaustively covered in the debates that have taken place already.
	As I have said, it would be a dangerous precedent for the House to waive its privilege on financial matters and permit the Lords amendment to stand. I have also made the point that it would be wrong because the amendment undermines one of the key principles of our housing finance policy and one of the key principles underlying the financial provisions of the Bill. We want resources to be allocated on the basis of need, not on the basis of accident or chance. We want resources to be distributed fairly and objectively through transparent mechanisms without favour or special treatment for one authority or one group of authorities.
	I remind the House how important the Bill is to local government. The Local Government Association and indeed large numbers of individual local authorities have repeatedly stressed their wish that the Bill should receive early Royal Assent, so that local government can have the benefit of the significant freedoms and flexibilities that it provides, yet if the Bill is not passed tomorrow, the prudential system cannot be implemented before April 2005. In these circumstances, I cannot believe that anyone who cares about the interests of local government wants to see any outcome other than immediate Royal Assent.

Edward Davey: On that point, the Liberal Democrats voted for the Bill on Second Reading. We support the prudential capital regime that the Government are putting in place. The Minister knows that the Government have a vehicle for bringing back the legislation if they think that their argument is so strong: the housing Bill, which is in draft form already and will be in the Queen's Speech. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better if one hon. Member at a time spoke, and may I discourage the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), from interrupting from a sedentary position?

Edward Davey: The Minister could use that legislative vehicle. It will be open to him in a matter of months. He could have his way if he could persuade both Houses of the virtue of his argument. The problem is that he has not managed that today.

Nick Raynsford: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have persistently won the votes in this House; we have won the arguments and the votes. It is only in the unelected House that a different position has been adopted. It is a slightly odd proposition to put to us that we should agree to drop our particular policy and accept the Lords amendment in the expectation that we would be able to get our original proposals through next year in a different vehicle. Is he suggesting that he would vote differently next year? If so, why would he vote differently?

Edward Davey: It is possible that the Minister may be able to persuade us. [Interruption.] It would be good if the Minister could at least listen to the answer. By then, we will have the information from the housing regional boards about how the housing needs of these different authorities will be met. We do not have that information at the moment. It is not surprising that many of the councils from which the money is being taken are up in arms, as they do not know whether they will be able to meet housing needs in their communities.

Nick Raynsford: Local authorities will be up in arms if the prudential regime that they are looking forward to with great enthusiasm is prevented from being introduced in April 2004 as a result of the delaying tactics of colleagues of the Opposition parties in another place, and most recently by their lordships in their vote.

David Wilshire: If the right hon. Gentleman is sneering at the other place, why is his Prime Minister going to stuff it full of even more of his unelected cronies to try to get his own way?

Nick Raynsford: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what the Minister was going to say in reply, but may I discourage him from following that line, as it is outside the scope of the Bill?

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that the general tenor of our debates on these subjects has been slightly more elevated than that adopted by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I do not intend to debase the debate by going down to that level.
	I must remind the Opposition parties, who have frequently criticised the Government for not moving faster to extend freedoms and flexibilities to local government, that their colleagues in another place have already put early implementation of the Bill at risk. Any further delay preventing the implementation of the prudential regime in April 2004 would be inexcusable, and those responsible would rightly stand condemned by all involved in local government.

Eric Pickles: I doubt that there is anyone in the Chamber or another place who believes that the right hon. Gentleman would throw the Bill away over the provision.

Nick Raynsford: It is our wish to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, and we have been working to that effect for a very long time indeed. If the hon. Gentleman believed what he said he would have spent time in recent months encouraging his colleagues in another place to be more constructive and expeditious in their consideration of the Bill. Today, Baroness Hanham advanced a spurious argument pretending that the amendment that she was urging their lordships to accept was a compromise. It was nothing of the sortit was a further wrecking amendment that sought to overturn the decision of the elected House on a financial matter, thereby breaching privilege. I hope that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) agrees that the privilege of the House is too important to be allowed to be passed over simply because he wants to score a political point. I urge the House to resist the amendment.

Philip Hammond: The original clause 11(2)(b) permitted the Secretary of State to sequester anything up to 100 per cent. of the housing capital receipts received by local authorities. The House of Lords, in its wisdom, removed that provision entirely when the Bill was sent back to us on Monday so that receipts would remain with the receiving authorities. Among the arguments that the Minister deployed against the attack on clause 11(2)(b) was an argument about the use to which housing capital receipts had been put by some local authorities. He argued that they had not been used for housing purposes. Our objection, and that of my noble Friends, to clause 11(2)(b) concerns the fact that it interferes with the right of debt-free authorities to dispose of their capital receipts as they see fit.
	However, in an attempt to compromise and address one of the Minister's principal objections, which he elaborated at great length in Committee during the Commons consideration of the Bill and again on Monday evening, the amendment was framed to allow the Secretary of State to ensure that a portion, determined by him, of those capital receipts is indeed for housing or urban regeneration purposes. That goes to the heart of one of the Minister's key objections to the thrust of the Lords' attack on the clause.
	The Lords amendment does indeed compromise the freedoms of local authorities, which is a cause of some concern. It is a compromise, whatever the Minister says, but it prevents the Government from snatching local authorities' capital receipts in their entirety. The Government have advertised the Bill as being about freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities, but at its heart is a provision that snatches the housing capital receipts of debt-free local authorities, as the Minister himself said, of about 120 million a year to fund the Government's own programme. That is the very antithesis of freedom and flexibility for local authorities.

Nicholas Winterton: May I follow up with my hon. Friend my earlier intervention on the Minister? In Macclesfield, which is debt-free, if the council does not receive the full amount of capital receipts from the sale of council houses, within a short period the account relating to maintenance and upgradingthe improvement of housing in the boroughwill go into substantial deficit. The council has planned for the future. It has been responsible. The measure will penalise a responsible authority such as the Macclesfield borough council, with which I discussed the matter at length on Monday afternoon and early evening.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. Many prudent local authorities throughout the country that have become debt-free will find themselves in the same position as Macclesfield.

Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in some authorities housing capital receipts should be spent on things other than housing, when his own party during my time in this place has been headlining the need to spend more money on housing, both in the south and south-east and in other regions of the country?

Philip Hammond: No. What my noble Friends have suggested in the amendment is that the Secretary of State should have a power to direct the use of those receipts, to secure that they are indeed used for housing or urban regeneration purposes. That is the thrust of the amendment, under which the Secretary of State would have the power to direct that up to 100 per cent. of the capital receipt could be used by the authority for a purpose specified by the Secretary of State.

John Gummer: Does not that mean that the difference between the amendment and the Government's position is not a financial difference, but a difference about who makes the decision? Would it not be true that any houses built anywhere are necessary, given the very large deficit? In those circumstances, would it not be better for the Government to allow the local authority to make decisions about its local needs?

Philip Hammond: That is precisely the point that I seek to make. The Minister's synthetic angerto use one of his favourite phrasesabout matters of privilege is just that: synthetic. That is not the issue tonight.
	During Monday's debate and before, the Minister argued that it is somehow unfair and even bizarre to allow debt-free authorities to keep and control their housing capital receipts. It is common sense: if one sells an asset and has no debts, one would expect to be free to use the proceeds. Equally, if one sells an asset against which one has borrowed, one cannot reasonably expect to be free to dispose of the proceeds as one wishes. People throughout the country would understand that as the normal way of the worldthe way things work.
	The Minister speaks as though debt-free status was a freak of nature. It is not. Many local authorities have worked hard to become debt-free. Many more local authorities aspire to that status, only to find now that the prize is kicked beyond their reach. The Minister says that councils' housing stock is a national asset. Of course we accept that some of it has been built and maintained, in part at least, by Government grants, but those have been grants. The Government cannot change the rules retrospectively. The care and maintenance, the enhancement and improvement, and sometimes the original provision of the housing stock, have also been funded by tenants and council tax payers, especially in local authorities that have been in negative housing subsidy for years.
	The stock belongs to local authorities and local communities, not to central Government, and the capital receipts from sale of that stock should belong to the local authorities for the benefit of their local communities. What does the Minister plan to do next? Does he plan to attack the cash balances of authorities that have been prudent in managing their resources and their assets, and have accumulated cash balances? Is that his next step?

Nick Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be any mechanism for redistribution between authorities, or does he think that resources should simply rest with the authority that receives the receipts?

Philip Hammond: I suggest to the Minister that in the current housing crisis, every authority receiving capital receipts could use every penny in its area. Let us be clear that authorities are receiving these capital receipts because they are disposing of housing stock. In my opinion and that of my hon. Friends, that implies an immediate need to replace that housing stock. I suggest to him that every authority could use every last penny of the capital receipts that it receives for entirely appropriate purposes in its own area. I also suggest to him that it is appropriate to fund the programmes that the Government have rightly and understandably introduced, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced, through general taxation. That is an appropriate way of funding those programmes.

Nick Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, with this statement:
	local Government needs to be granted a far greater degree of financial autonomy . . . Of course, there are important limiting factors on how far these additional freedoms can go. There will always be a vital and active role for central Government in providing mechanisms of redistribution that ensure a degree of territorial equity, as well as in enforcing broad financial stability?

Philip Hammond: General taxation in respect of the distribution of Government grant is redistributive by its very nature. [Interruption.] The Minister is attacking[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we must not have conversations in the Chamber. If hon. Members want a meeting, they should go elsewhere and not interrupt proceedings here.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is seeking to grab 120 milliona relatively small sum in the grand scheme of the Government's housing programmefrom about 34 authorities that have managed their affairs in such a way that they are debt-free and are situated in areas where capital receipts from housing right to buy are relatively high, which suggests a need to replace units of social housing that have been sold. He is seeking to take those capital receipts and redistribute them to areas that have been less prudent. I argue that, in many cases, such areas will be in less need of affordable housing in the present housing crisis than the areas to which the receipts accrue.

Nick Raynsford: In the hon. Gentleman's repudiation of the concept of redistribution, why is he clearly rejecting the views set out by his own party in a document called Total Politics, which was launched on 11 September this year? Are Opposition Members' memories that short?

Philip Hammond: If the Minister would like a hard copy with a glossy cover, I shall be happy to send him one.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has not read it.

Philip Hammond: As it happens, I have read the document.
	I have not repudiated arguments for redistribution. What I have told the Government is that they have a large pot of money available for funding housing need. I have told them that the proper way of funding such need is to use the resources that they have available and not try to attack a relatively small sum held by a small number of prudent and well-managed local authorities.

Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in a council such as Burnley, which has very low-value properties, we need 115 million to put right the problems that we have in respect of private sector housing, as there are currently 4,500 empty houses? The type of policy that he proposes will provide no solution to such problems.

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman will realise if he thinks about the matter, in the areas where the capital receipts are being generated, empty houses could be a solution to the problem. In areas where capital receipts are being generated because house prices are high, our problem is precisely that there is a total dearth of available and affordable housing to house the very public sector workers whom the Government desperately need if they are ever to deliver on their myriad promises to improve public services.
	The Minister argues that local authorities with large housing capital receipts do not need housing reinvestment. He ignores the fact that those receipts are being generated by the sale of council houses, which must then be replaced. He also ignores the fact that the areas with high house prices and high housing demand are, in the present crisis, the very areas in which the need for new investment in affordable housing is at its greatest. I suggest to him that the real housing crisis today is in those areasprecisely the areas that he has tried to paint as leafy and suburban, without real housing need and not deserving of the ability to reinvest capital receipts in their own area for the benefit of local people and local communities.
	If the Government's agenda of public service improvement, or even maintenance of basic public services, is to stand a chance of being achieved in those areas, the Minister had better support the reinvestment of those funds in the affordable housing that is so vital for key public sector workers.
	The Minister argues that receipts have been diverted from housing. Our principled objection to clause 11(2)(b) is that central Government should not interfere in local authorities' disposal of their capital receipts. Whatever he may say, our noble Friends have sought to achieve a compromise, and have addressed his concern. Even at the price of compromising on the principle that central Government have no right to interfere with these receipts, they have proposed a power for the Secretary of State to direct that they be used for specific purposes, the clear understanding being that the power would be used to ensure that the receipts are spent on housing investment, housing repairs and urban renewal.
	The Lords, then, have sought to compromise; but they have insisted on challenging the Government's demand to levy what is effectively a tax on the housing capital receipts of well-managed, prudent local authorities. The Government say that it would initially be 75 per cent., but the Bill does not restrict it to that level: it could be increased to 100 per cent. by secondary legislation.
	All that the Government have done by insisting on the original clause is to show that their rhetoric about freedom and flexibility for local government is precisely thatempty rhetoric. They have shown their hostility to prudent management of local authority finances and their indifference to local authorities and local communities that have worked hard to become debt-free, and reconfirmed their hostility to the right-to-buy policy that has given hope and opportunity to millionsa policy that the Government, and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular, have sought to erode, restrict and undermine.
	I urge my hon. Friends and Liberal Democrats who value the principle of local authority freedom to vote to retain the Lords amendment, and send the Government a clear message that we will not give in to this assault on prudent, well-managed authorities by an increasingly imprudent and cash-strapped central Government.

Edward Davey: With this amendment, the House of Lords has effectively called the Government's bluff. When we debated this matter in detail in Committee, the Minister gave examplesnot many, as he did not have many to givein which he alleged that debt-free authorities used receipts from the sale of council houses for non-housing purposes. He suggested that some of the money was being used to subsidise council tax levels, and that some was being used for other council projects unconnected with housing. The amendment would give the Government power to ensure that councils used the money for the purposes the Government wantedfor housing, presumably. So the Government's bluff has been called. If they wish to ensure that the money is retained in the housing sector, within the overall housing policy envelope, they now have the means to do so.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, essentially, our debate of two nights ago was about a very simple argument: whether fairness, involving redistribution, should in this case be given precedence over receipts simply resting where they happen to fall, through the accidents of history and geography. We challenged him to say whether he was on the side of fairness, and of redistribution in favour of deprived areas such as Liverpool, or whether he would like to allow receipts simply to fall in the area in which they were accrued, because house prices happened to be high. Is he now confirming that he is against fairness and in favour of the accidents of history and geography?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to answer my point, but in fact he answered it with a completely different argument. I shall come to redistribution, but I should point out that he did not seek to deny that point in Committee; he used examples of authorities that did not use receipts for investment in housing. Such examples have been shown not to be relevant by the amendment before us; the argument has been well and truly won.
	My speech will be relatively short because what I said two nights ago still stands and has not been affected by events, and because I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). That said, it would have been good if the previous Conservative Government had allowed local authorities to keep receipts from council house sales so that they could have invested in affordable housing. However, we do not want to return to the sorry history of the Conservatives' many failures in this area.
	One key principle that works against the Government's position is that of prudent financial management and proper fiscal incentives for local authorities to run down their debt. In an earlier exchange, the Minister tried to redefine that principle by limiting it simply to prudent financial management, thereby excluding the incentive to move to debt-free status. At no point during our debates on this key fiscal principleit is certainly important to us, and, indeed, to the Conservativeswas the Minister able to point to any other aspect of the new regime, or of previous statutes, that would provide such an incentive for local authorities to move to debt-free status. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought surely to be keen on such an incentive.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is eliding two different concepts: prudent financial management and debt-free status. There will be many cases in which it is prudent to borrow to achieve benefits that would not otherwise be achievable for the residents of a given area. Alternatives such as the private finance initiativehis party is not terribly keen on the PFImight not necessarily be the best way to invest, if a borrowing alternative exists that will achieve the objective. Does he agree that such a situation is possible, and if so, that it might be prudentI am not saying that it definitely would befor an authority to take such a decision?

Edward Davey: The Minister knows that we do not disagree with that overall point, given that we support the capital regime that the Bill puts in place. That does not mean, however, that no incentive should exist elsewhere in the system to move to debt-free status. The two concepts can exist side by side; the point at issue between us is that the Minister is excluding one of them.
	On the Minister's point about fairness, I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. In terms of redistribution, it is important that areas with low resource bases and real needs get funds from central Government, but that is not what the Minister is trying to do here; rather, he is trying to take money from other local authorities. As we know, local authorities in many areasrich or poorare cash-strapped; that is why the council tax has been going up so much. The Minister ought to have some sympathy and compassion for such local authorities. Redistribution is needed, but it should come from central Government.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good case, but will he also deal with this point? As a debt-free authority, Macclesfield is going to lose out, in that housing maintenance and other projects and budgets will go into deficit. Affordable, low-cost housing is often funded through the money that housing associations receive from the Housing Corporation. In the foreseeable future, Macclesfield will further lose out, in that the money that its housing associations receive through the Housing Corporation for low-cost, affordable housing projects will be dramatically reduced.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point and helps to explain why some debt-free authorities feel so passionately about the issue. Many of them worked hard to attain their good position because they wanted to meet some of the Government's own targetson decent homes, for example.
	I know that Three Rivers district council, which I referred to on Monday, worked hard at all aspects of its finances to reach a good position, meet the standards and provide more affordable housing for its key workers. It was a policy target for the council, but the problem is that the Government are changing the rules when councils have worked within them. There is a degree of retrospection, because housing policy has to be considered over a period of years. I am particularly concerned about the retrospection involved in the grab of money from the debt-free authorities.
	Another important principle is the balance between centralism and localism. The Bill was sold to us as one that would liberalise local authorities, offering them freedoms and flexibilities. Yet this week we have already heard that one of the key freedoms and flexibilities for authorities judged excellent and good under the comprehensive performance assessmentnamely, no danger of cappingis being removed. We now know that another key financial freedom that existed under the old system is going to be removed. The Government are making it worse than it was under the system that they inherited from the Conservatives.
	I want to touch on the point about privilege, which the Minister focused on in his remarks. He is interpreting the principle oddly. As I said in my intervention, it is not about tax or overall spending going up or down, but about redistribution. I recall when the Minister was in opposition and the Conservatives were passing the poll tax. I am sure that his party, like mine, worked as hard as it could in the other place to defeat that appalling Conservative measure. If the House of Lords had insisted that the poll tax should fall, I doubt whether he would have been too worried

Nick Raynsford: It did not.

Edward Davey: The Minister says that it did not, but that is not relevant to my point. He would have supported the House of Lords. Will he tell us whether he would not have wanted the other place to defeat the poll tax if it had the opportunity to do so? On those sorts of matters, the issue of privilege is not so significant.
	The issue of privilege has moved on. We have seen various reforms to the other placeintroduced by the Minister's Governmentto give it greater legitimacy, so they say. Under his Government and the previous Conservative Government, the House's role in public finance and scrutiny of the public purse has been reduced to a myth. The House does not control the Executive over finances and the Minister knows it. We do not have proper debates on the estimates. We have only three days a year under Standing Orders to debate them, and when we do, we do not really debate the estimates, but the Select Committee report. On one of those days, I had the temerity to ask a Treasury Minister about the estimates before us, but that Minister had not even been briefed to answer the question. That shows how the House does not really scrutinise expenditure. The idea of praying in aid privilege when the House has virtually given up any role in financial scrutiny does not bear analysis.
	I believe that it would be right for the House to agree with the other place tonight. We have won the argument in principle and in practical examples, and it is time that the Government listened.

John Gummer: It may help if I provide an analogy. If the Government were bringing forward a decision to penalise debt-free Ministers and redistribute their money to Ministers who had not been as careful with their finances, would it stand any examination? The problem is simply this. The difference is not about fairness. If the Minister were saying that local authorities' needs should be examined and, where they have resources far beyond those needs, they should be redistributed, the House might be prepared seriously to listen to his argument.
	What the Minister is saying is that it is axiomatic that local authorities that are debt free do no have acute housing needs.

Nick Raynsford: No, I am not.

John Gummer: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that, he should accept the amendment, which would enable him to direct those authorities without needs to use the money for the kind of housing that is necessary in every part of the country. I challenge the Minister to tell me the name of a single local authority that is debt free and does not need affordable housing. If he can give us a list of such authorities, we can think about his argument, but until he can, we know that this is not a matter of fairness.It is a matter of redistribution, and we know why the right hon. Gentleman wants to redistribute. Some authorities have been careful and have sought a way to provide affordable housing in their high-cost areas. Of course, such authorities receive more money when they sell their council houses, because their areas are high cost. Such areas need more money, not less, when they are trying to provide affordable housing. Therefore, the Minister's argument is not just accidentally wrong: it is nonsense.

Nick Raynsford: Had the right hon. Gentleman been here on Monday, he would have heard me presenting the argument. I argued not that there were no needs in debt-free areas, but that there were relative differences in need between different areas. The right hon. Gentleman would have heard me argue that in the same way that the Conservative Government of which he was a member felt that it was right to exercise a degree of redistribution to achieve fairness, we sought to do the same. Does he agree with the Conservative party's document that states:
	There will always be a vital and active role for central Government in providing mechanisms of redistribution that ensure a degree of territorial equity?

John Gummer: It is called the council tax grant. We all know that it is a mechanism used by the Government to ensure that the aid from the centre to local government is tailored properly to the needs of the locality. Everybody knows that, and the Minister knows that we spent much time trying to make it as fair as possible.
	The only reason why I did not have the chance to listen to the Minister on Monday was that I was in Cancun trying to discuss a trade issue of some importance. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I return to my accusation. To make his argument stand up, he has to show that those councils that are debt free have less needto such a degree that it is worth overriding the local interestthat they need to have their resources taken away from them.
	I do not even argue that every authority that is debt free is so as a result of prudence, although I bet that if Ministers were debt free they would claim it was their own work. The accident that enables some local authorities to have large receipts from the sale of council houses also means that it is more expensive for those authorities to provide housing for teachers and nurses and other essential workers than it is for other areas that are not as fortunate in the amount of money that they receive from selling council houses.

Philip Hammond: Would my right hon. Friend also note that the very fact that those authorities have received those capital receipts from housing means that they have reduced their social housing stock? They have sold units to obtain the capital receipts, and the presumption must be that they must reinvest to replace those units.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, but he is being too kind to the Government. The problem is that the Government claim to believe in local decision making and local action, but in every case they turn to central planning and control. The Government use the fine words devolution, devolvement and locality whenever they introduce a measure, but what they are actually doing is imposing the central Government diktat.
	I noticed the paucity of the Minister's arguments because he could speak only about privilege. This is not about the quantum of money involved, or about raising or lowering taxes. It is about fairness, which is a matter that the House of Lords is perfectly able to debate.
	Fairness means that local authoritieswhere the provision of affordable housing for people who need support is expensiveshould be allowed to use the additional receipts that they get. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is right, and the comparison is exact: one sells an asset in an expensive area at a higher price because it costs more to replace it. The Government do not understand the basic facts of supply and demand, or of the provision of affordable housing in areas where that is most needed. That explains why they have presided over the worst housing figures since world war one.

Brian Iddon: rose

John Gummer: The Government must accept that they are incredible when it comes to housing, because they have created circumstances in which fewer houses are built every year. They will make the situation worse unless they allow prudent authorities to use the results of their prudence to provide affordable housing where it is often most neededin expensive areas where necessary workers who serve the community are not otherwise able to find homes.

Edward Davey: Does that not show that the Government do not understand how markets work? In this case, they are taking money that could be used to increase the supply of affordable housing. With the starter homes initiative in London and the south-east, in contrast, they are giving money to increase demand. They are therefore reducing supply and increasing demand, and making the problem worse.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government do not understand the laws of supply and demand. They do not understand that, in the present housing crisis, it does not matter where the houses are built, nor what sort of houses are built. We have a shortage at every level, and in every circumstance. The Minister is merely carrying out the diktat of the Treasury. He must get his fingers on as much money as possible, use it centrally, and put it where it can aid his friends. That is what this is abouttaking from those who need and giving to those who might support this Government. We know that, as does the House of Lords. The amendment will be rejected, not because it is a matter of privilege but because it is a way of fiddling the books.

Nick Raynsford: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who was once Secretary of State for the Environment, will reflect on what he has said and realise that his final remark was unworthy of him. We are discussing mechanisms very similar to the ones for which he, when in government, used to be responsible. They ensured that capital receipts were redistributed from areas with high receipts and relatively low needs to other areas. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here on Monday, he would have heard me say all that then. Alternatively, he could have read the Hansard report.

Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: Of course.

Brian Iddon: I have been trying to make this point for some time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that abandoning the concept of pooling, which Opposition Members appear to want, would mean that there was no hope for owner-occupiers in the 23,000 unfit houses in Bolton alone? That is not to mention all the unfit houses in the private sector.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He highlights the enormous extent of housing need in this country. We inherited that on coming to government, and it includes the massive backlog of substandard housing, especially council housing. In our six years in government, we have acted to improve more than 700,000 homes which were in appalling condition when we inherited them from the previous Conservative Government but which are now decent and modern homes.
	It ill behoves a former Secretary of State who presided over the worst homelessness and housing crisis in a long time to ignore the fact that we are investing two and a half times as much as his Government did. Because we need to maximise investment, we are rightly taking the same approach that his Government tookredistribution in favour of the areas of greatest need. Indeed, judging from a pamphlet published only a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman's own party still believes that that is appropriate. That leaflet provides recognition by people who have thought about the issues that redistribution is necessary to ensure that resources are used to best effect and to achieve territorial equity.
	The Liberal Democrats sadly failed the test of whether they were on the side of fairness or opportunism. Presented with the choice of saying, on a difficult decision, that they would favour redistribution to ensure that areas of greatest need got more or of sticking to the principle of leaving money wherever it arose through the accident of geography, they opted for the latter, even though they know that it is wrong. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) knows that it is wrong, and he knows that his colleagues in Liverpool would not support what he said tonight. They would argue for redistributionand I have no doubt that when he goes to Liverpool with other Liberal Democrats, he too will say, Let's redistribute more money in favour of Liverpool. That is what they will say in Liverpool; they will not say it here because they are appealing to a different audience. That is the Liberal Democratssay one thing to one group of people and something quite different to another.
	We have established a policy of principle to try to ensure that housing resources are used to best effect and that the needs of our country are met. That policy will be frustrated if the Lords amendment stands. It would deliberately prevent some 120 million in capital receipts from debt-free authorities from being used through recycling to help the needs of other areas. Our policy would not mean that the debt-free authorities would receive nothing: they would stand to benefit and would keep a proportion of their capital receipts. However, it is a principle of fairness that those authorities should be subject to the same redistribution rules that apply to the 200 more authorities that have housing stock. Opposition parties have entirely ignored the argument about why some authoritiesa small group of 40 or soshould be uniquely advantaged and given the benefit of keeping their capital receipts in full when all other authorities are subject to a redistribution mechanism.
	The Opposition's arguments are threadbare. Their colleagues in the other place are arguing against the privilege of this House and against logic and common sense. This House should reject the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
	The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 112.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up the Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 3B: Paul Clark, Mr. Edward Davey, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Philip Hammond and Phil Hope; Phil Hope to the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Paul Clark.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reason for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PETITIONS
	  
	Winter Fuel Payment

Michael Jabez Foster: I have the honour to present a petition prepared by Patrick Iddenden and others and signed by more than 100 residents of Hastings and Rye, mostly disabled, who seek an extension of the winter fuel payment to disabled people. Sadly, the first person named on the petition, Patrick Iddenden, has died suddenly since collecting the names, but his widow, Jacqueline, has requested that the petition still be presented.
	Addressed to the House of Commons, the petition of Patrick Iddenden, Zena Gould and others declares:
	That disabled people suffer from similar mobility problems, and low incomes, as do the elderly, and that their need for warmth during winter months is equally important.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to allow those on Disability Benefits to qualify for the Winter Fuel Allowance presently only available to the over 60s.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Chenies Village

Cheryl Gillan: I present a petition of more than 400 residents of and visitors to Chenies village.
	The petition declares:
	Strong opposition to the erection of a 16-metre mast together with equipment cabinets surrounded by a 2-metre high edge and fence compound at OS Field 0069 opposite the Van Hage Garden Company in Chenies; notes that it will significantly detract from and adversely affect the landscape and the locality; and further notes that there are conflicting reports regarding the health risks associated with these masts.
	The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge that that a precautionary approach be adopted given the proximity of the mast to local resident children and Chenies Primary School.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Schools (Buckinghamshire)

Cheryl Gillan: I should like to take the opportunity to present a second petitionthat of 170 residents of Jordans and others.
	The petition declares:
	Strong opposition to the review of school catchment areas by Buckinghamshire County Council, which will result not only in the loss of four out of five schools but also in children being sent to three totally new schools, two of which are in High Wycombe over ten miles away; notes that although the changes are purported to cut transport costs and journey times, they will result in children travelling to school over ten miles away; and further notes that while the changes are in intended to give parents a choice of schools, they will result in the parents of children in Jordans losing their choice, particularly for girls.
	The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge Buckinghamshire County Council to reinstate Dr. Challoner's Grammar School and Dr. Challoner's High School for the village of Jordans and prevent children from Jordans travelling to High Wycombe, which is over twice the distance away.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Roaccutane

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clive Efford: I have requested this Adjournment debate because of the widespread concern that exists about the side effects of the drug Roaccutane, which is used to treat people suffering from the most acute cases of acne.
	The most common side effects of this drug are worth putting on record:
	Dryness of the skin especially the lips and face and you may get some mild itching and slight peeling. The face may be redder than usual. A dry throat which may cause hoarseness. Dryness of the mucous membranes inside the nose, that may become crusted causing minor nose bleeds . . . Dry eyes that may irritate. This may be a particular problem for patients who wear contact lenses . . . muscle aches . . . you should avoid vigorous exercise. Temporary loss or increase of hair.
	The less common side effects include:
	headaches, nausea, fatigue, sweating, changes of the menstrual cycle, slight loss of hearing, changes in vision, jaundice, liver disease, anaemia, seizures and inflammatory bowel disease . . . Some people have experienced mood changes (depression or symptoms of mental disorders) . . . and in rare cases suicide and attempts of suicide. You may also suffer from systemic infections, localised bacterial infections such as infection of the tissue surrounding the base of the nail, swellings which discharge pus, increased facial pigmentation and swollen glands. There may also be inflammation of the blood vessels, blood in the urine and changes in blood glucose levels (especially for patients with diabetes) . . . On rare occasions the uric acid level in your blood may increase and if you suffer from gout, it could trigger an attack. Very high levels of uric acid may affect the function of your kidney. You may also bruise or bleed more easily due to changes in blood cells, which are needed to clot the blood. Other blood changes may make you more prone to infections.
	My hon. Friend the Minister may think that I have cobbled together that list to sex up my case, but in fact I have just read out the patient's advice that is issued with this drug. I spared him the list of possible side effects for pregnant women. Irony on irony, the advice says:
	If any of the above side effects become troublesome you should consult your doctor,
	which is probably unnecessary advice given the scale and seriousness of those possible side effects.

Peter Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend is being very kind to the Minister. Perhaps I can play the hard cop to his soft cop routine on listing the side effects of this dreadful drug. I remind my hon. Friend of the case of Luke Garner, who took this drug at the age of 13.
	If I may assist my hon. Friend, I will list the after-effects that Luke suffered. They include mental disturbance, arthralgia, bone pain, bone tenderness, cheilitis, cheilosis, epistaxis, inflammation or burning lips, ocular irritation, skin rash, dry eyes, dry mouth, hair loss, dry skin, severe headaches, nasal dryness, peeling skin, unusual tiredness, depression, joint stiffness, mood changes, muscle stiffness, myalgia, optic neuritis, trouble with concentration, fatigue, weakness, paraesthesias, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, loss of appetite, malaise, lethargy, swollen glands, various infections, extreme facial and body flushing, difficulty in walking and panic attacks. According to two neurologists, he also suffers from Guillain-Barre syndrome as a direct result of taking the drug.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend illustrates the scale of the problems and conditions faced by people who take the drug.
	I accept that acne can be a serious condition for the people who suffer from it and that there is a balance to be struck between the risk of medication and the effect of the continuing condition on a patient. However, none of the advice that is given to practitioners or patients warns that any of the side effects may be permanent, which is the most important issue in the debate.
	The problems with Roaccutane reached my attention when I was approached by Mrs. Stokes-Perkins. Her son Jack was diagnosed with acne at the age of 13. He was a successful student at school and one of those sickening individuals who are good at just everything they do. He was doing well academically and achieving a great deal at sport. He was a confident and outgoing young man. He developed acne at the age of 13 and tried every course of medication available but although he experienced slight remissions, the acne continued to return.
	In January 2001, it was decided that Jack should take a course of Roaccutane. It was his choice to take the drug. He discussed the situation with his family and knew that there was a potentially serious risk of major side effects such as depression, but with the support of his family, he decided to go ahead with the course. Jack was 6 ft 2 in by that time. He was the house captain of his rugby team and played rugby for the Old school under-18 team and, at weekends, for Blackheath rugby club. He organised sport and social events and was part of his school debating society.
	Jack took the course of Roaccutane and everything seemed fine. On returning to his doctor, he was prescribed another course, which seemed to go fine until the last week of the course when the skin on Jack's lips started to fall away. Consequently, Jack finished up with a condition meaning that sunlight dried and cracked his lips, cold weather made them swell and water made the skin fall off. If he went to places such as pubs, the smoky atmosphere made his lips crack. By August 2002a year laterhe would go out only if he was wearing a mask.
	Jack cannot eat normally because anything that comes into contact with his lips causes the skin to fall off. He cannot work to subsidise his activities because he never knows what his daily condition will be. His social life has been virtually destroyed. He is on permanent medication to try to minimise the permanent side effect of Roaccutane. He has seen two senior consultant dermatologists who both concluded that Roaccutane is to blame for his condition. Dr. Chu from Hammersmith hospital has publicly called for an inquiry into Roaccutane and its side effects.
	Jack has been permanently disfigured as a result of taking the drug but other people have had their lives wrecked and some have committed suicide. The drug is a derivative of vitamin A, an overdose of which can have damaging effects on people's mental state. He was aware of those warnings and, thankfully, did not suffer such side effects but other people have. I have seen figures from the World Health Organisation that report 20,000 cases of adverse drug reaction reports relating to Roaccutane as far back as 1997. Figures for the United Kingdom show that, of 170 million prescriptions of drugs relating to acne, there were 239 adverse drug reaction reports, of which 135 related to Roaccutanemore than 50 per cent. There were nine suicides, eight attempted suicides and six cases of people indicating that they had a desire or intention to commit suicide. All those cases related to people who had taken Roaccutane. Of those 170 million prescriptions in the UK, Roaccutane accounts for just 12,400, yet every suicide-related case related to Roaccutane.
	In the past year, I have tabled a number of questions relating to the drug but unfortunately the answers have not been forthcoming because the Medicines Control Agency has been undertaking a review on behalf of the European Commission. I contacted the MCA today and it has advised me that it has finished its review, has passed its report to the European Commission and is waiting for its conclusions.
	I have discovered today by talking to the MCA that the review will be about not whether the drug should continue in use but what advice will accompany the drug when it is prescribed. I have chosen to have the debate ahead of that report not only because we have been waiting far too long for conclusions but because we need to try to influence the conclusions that the European Commission may come to on the drug.
	I accept that there may be a place for Roaccutane in the treatment of acne sufferers but more needs to be known about the potential damage that it can cause. Roche, the manufacturers, will not accept that its drug caused Jack's condition. How many others is it denying whom we do not know about?
	There are many examples that we do know about, however. Charles Bishop was the teenager who flew a plane into the Bank of America Plaza in Tampa. Hon. Members may recall that that happened soon after the 9/11 twin towers catastrophe. It was seen to be a copycat attack at the time but turned out to be by someone who had been taking Accutane, the United States equivalent of Roaccutane.
	Congressman Bart Stupac's son BJ unexpectedly committed suicide on the night of his school prom at a party at his house. He was a young individual with a life in front of him. The description of him sounds very much like that of Jack. Luke Hassett finished up in a psychiatric unit having taken Roaccutane.
	Today, I went on to the web to find out more information about the drug. I have discovered that it is available on the web. The website that I visited listed 200 countries from which it can be purchased over the internet. In the UK, evidence of prescribing for conditions for which the drug was not originally intended are rife.
	In an article in The Sunday Times, a spokeswoman from Roche said:
	We have had external scientists and internal scientists look into the side-effects and we have found no causal relationship between Roaccutane and any psychiatric events, from depression or suicide.
	The response from the company is denial and it is the most disturbing aspect of the whole affair. While it remains in denial of the potential permanent effects that its drug can have, the suspicion about the safety of the drug will grow. The list of side effects in the advice that accompanies the drug is simply to cover its back from any legal challenge that may be mounted by someone who has suffered these side effects. Roaccutane should not be prescribed unless it is by a specialist dermatologist who has undertaken a pregnancy test in the case of a female, and there has been a thorough blood test and a psychiatric assessment of the patient concerned, including an assessment of any history of psychiatric conditions in the family. There is clear evidence that that is not taking place. A full inquiry into the drug should be carried out, and is well overdue. We need to determine whether it is safe to prescribe Roaccutane in the first place and, if we decide that it should be prescribed, practitioners need to set clear and enforceable guidelines for its use. Patients need to be warned of the drug's possibly permanent side-effects. The suggestion in the notes that I have read that all the conditions are temporary and that people will return to normal after they have completed a course of treatment is not sufficient.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to what I have said and to the case described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). If this situation continues and the European Commission does not come to a satisfactory conclusion in its deliberations on the drug, we will back on the Floor of the House debating this matter again. People cannot continue to be put at risk as a result of taking the drug without being given clear advice and information about its possible risks.

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing this debate on the prescribing of Roaccutane and on the efforts he is making on behalf of his constituent. He is a strong and persistent advocate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on the efforts that he is making on behalf of his constituent. I understand the distress faced by both my hon. Friends' constituentstheir condition and the symptoms from which they are suffering must make things extremely difficult for them. Nothing that I say tonight diminishes the Government's sympathetic view of their condition. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for ElthamI promise to read his comments in the Official Report, and shall make sure that all the officials in the Department involved with the issue read them as well. If there are points that I do not deal with today, I shall write to him.
	Neither of my hon. Friends would want me to try to intervene on the Floor of the House in any dispute between their constituents and the makers of Roaccutane, and neither of them have asked me to do so. If they have not done so already, I am sure that they will both advise their constituents to seek appropriate legal advice. I will, however, try to address the general points that have been raised. I shall discuss the broad issues around the use of the drug, its prescription and regulation, and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for giving me the chance to update the House on these issues. I will also try to address the serious concerns that he raised about the safety of the drug, including the debilitating chapping and inflammation of the lips known as cheilitis.
	Roaccutane is the brand name for the drug substance known as isotretinoin, which is the name that I shall use for the remainder of my speech. Isotretinoin is the active component of Roaccutane, and is an important medicine that has been on the market for about 20 years. Without in any way minimising the distressing side effects suffered by my hon. Friends' constituents, it is important to recognise that it has helped very many people during that time and has changed many lives for the better. I can assure both my hon. Friends that whenever this issue is raised in public, the Department of Health receives many letters from people whose lives have been changed for the better by the drug, and who want to make sure that we are aware of their experience as well as the negative experience of others.
	Isotretinoin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, is a derivative of vitamin A that is used for the treatment of severe and resistant acne. Acne is a common condition that affects about 80 per cent. of adolescents at one time or another and occasionally affects adults. Although it is not life-threatening, it can have a significant impact on the lives of sufferers. In its severe forms, acne can be extremely debilitating and distressing, and can cause disfigurement and permanent scarring. Many forms of acne will respond well to treatment with topical preparations or systemic antibiotics, but for severe and resistant acne, effective treatment options are very limited, and isotretinoin is one of the limited number of effective treatments available.
	Isotretinoin has been authorised in the UK since 1983. It is available worldwide, has been used by millions of people, and is a highly effective oral treatment for the type of severe and resistant acne that I have described. It is important that hon. Members understand that all effective medicines have side effects. There is always the risk of side effects in some people, and unfortunately it is often impossible to predict which individuals will suffer a side effect from a medicine. A medicine will be issued with a licence for use in certain circumstances only if it is considered that, in those circumstances, the benefits of treatment outweigh the risk of side effects. The risks and benefits of isotretinoin were carefully considered at the time of licensing, and because of the known safety profile of the drug, it is licensed for use only in severe forms of acne that are resistant to other treatment.

Clive Efford: There has been an inquiry at Leeds infirmary, where a number of cases came to light in which people with mild forms of acne were prescribed Roaccutane. If it is decided that Roaccutane can be used, there must be stricter guidelines because it is not being prescribed in accordance with the licence issued back in 1987.

Stephen Ladyman: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I emphasise that we issue a licence that describes the conditions under which the drug should be used. It is open to any clinician at any time to issue a particular type of treatment to an individual if they think that it is in that patient's best interest. If clinicians depart from the licence conditions, they do so on their own responsibility because they believe that it is in the clinical interest of their patient. They must answer for that decision under the terms of normal clinical governancein other words, what happens in those cases becomes the doctor's responsibility. Those are the only cases in which it is possible to diverge from the licence arrangements. I shall have my officials look into the case that my hon. Friend mentions. Unless the doctors involved can answer for their decision to depart from the licence conditions, they are in the wrong. That needs to be investigated and they need to answer for it.
	I emphasise that when isotretinoin is to be prescribed in cases of severe acne, it should be usedthis is another of the licence conditionsonly when other treatments have been tried and have failed. It is a treatment that should be considered last, not first.
	Since licensing, the safety of isotretinoin has been closely monitored by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agencyformerly the Medicines Control Agencywith expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Isotretinoin is a highly effective medicine, but it is widely understood that it is associated with some serious side effects, and these must be considered when the clinician decides to use it.
	Most importantly, isotretinoin is extremely harmful to the unborn foetus and therefore must not be taken during pregnancy or when there is a risk of pregnancy. Other common known side effects include dryness of the skin and the lining of the mouth, nose and eyes. The dryness of the skin associated with isotretinoin can take the form of cheilitis, which is the cracking or inflammation of the lips, a condition that can become severe, chronic and debilitating in some patients. It sounds very similar to the symptoms experienced by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. There has also been significant concern about the possibility that isotretinoin may be associated with depression and suicidal behaviour.
	Isotretinoin is licensed only for use in severe forms of acne that are resistant to other treatment. That narrow indication is not the only restriction to its use in the UK. Isotretinoin can currently be given only by or under the supervision of a consultant dermatologistone of the conditions that my hon. Friend said needed to be strictly adhered to. In addition, the supply of isotretinoin is restricted to availability through hospital pharmacies or specified retail pharmacies at the request of a consultant dermatologist. The intention of restricting prescribing in that way is that it is those health professionals with most experience and who are best placed to give patients advice about the important safety issues related to the prescribing of isotretinoin who are making prescribing decisions.
	My hon. Friend referred to the internet, which is not a legal and licensed source for the drug. It might be available there, but I fear that many things that are not in our constituents' best interests are available on the internet these days.
	To underpin the process, all licensed medicines have a summary of product characteristics. The summary, which my hon. Friend described, contains important information for prescribers. Licensed medicines are also accompanied by an information leaflet for patients. These documents are changed and new information is added as it becomes available. The patient information leaflet is an essential document if the patient is to be fully aware of the possible risks of treatment and make informed choices about their care. In the case of skin dryness and inflammation, there is clear advice to expect such effects and on how to relieve or minimise symptoms.
	My hon. Friend mentioned that the leaflet contained no advice about permanent risk. I was not aware that that was the case, and I shall ensure that the people responsible for drafting the leaflet and other officials are aware of that concern. I shall have the matter investigated and I shall ensure that it is acted on if it is within my power to do so.

Clive Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Many people are suffering permanent conditions as a result of having taken Roaccutane. That is the issue that is of most concern and the reason why I have initiated this debate.

Stephen Ladyman: If there is a risk of permanent side effects, they should be described in the leaflet. I certainly promise to ensure that that is looked into.
	Despite the guidance in the British National Formulary about the narrow licensed indication for isotretinoin in the UK, its use is not always restricted to patients with severe and resistant acne. Ultimately, the clinical care of an individual patient is the responsibility of their doctor and it is an important principle that doctors can prescribe medicines outside the licensed indication if they consider that that is in the best interests of the patient. The doctor is responsible for the safe use of the product in those circumstances and is answerable under clinical governance rules.
	Because of the harmful effects of isotretinoin during pregnancy, it has been the aim of regulatory authorities in Europe and worldwide to introduce measures to ensure that no one takes isotretinoin while pregnant. The summary of product characteristics lays down stringent conditions for use in women who are of childbearing potential. However, the current safeguards have not succeeded in preventing all exposed pregnancies, which has highlighted the need for further measures to be introduced.
	My hon. Friend has also given me the opportunity to update the House on some important European work on the safety of isotretinoin. The UK and France have led a recent European initiative to harmonise the product information for the drug. The aim of the review was to get up to date and consistent product information for prescribers and patients across all member states. The procedure has also developed a set of important principles for nationally agreed pregnancy prevention programmes. The completion of the procedure is imminent, and the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency is having discussions with key stakeholders to plan communication of these important new prescribing principles to health professionals and patients who use isotretinoin.
	The UK lead in the European review has allowed us to ensure that the important restrictions on isotretinoin use that are present in the UK now are not relaxed and are taken forward in Europe. The UK input into the review has been informed by an expert working group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The group includes representatives specialising in dermatology, general practice, family planning and psychiatry.
	I hope that I have dealt with all the points that my hon. Friend made. I assure him that I shall write to him if I have missed any and that I will take action on whether the product description should include information about possible permanent side effects.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock.

Deferred Division
	  
	Implementation and Compliance of the Common Fisheries Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7623/03, Commission Communication towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. 10509/03, Commission Communication on compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy: 'Compliance work plan and scoreboard'; takes note of the Government's support for the work plan; and supports the Government's objective of playing a constructive part in detailed discussion of the proposals to improve co-operation between enforcement agencies and of the feasibility study on the proposed Community Fisheries Control Agency.
	The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 155.

Question accordingly agreed to.